|
Post by beth on Jul 21, 2010 15:51:41 GMT -5
I don't think it's the same as Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, etc.. The reasons in those cases seem to me to have been more serious and more honorable. That depends on your point of view. Andrew Jackson's prosecution of his war against Indians is not seen by many as honorable. Neither was our war against Spain. Whether or not a war is "honorable" doesn't matter much, in terms of national interest. We avoid entering honorable wars (e.g. to save the Rwandans or Cambodians) and enter into dishonorable ones, depending on what is considered good geopolitically for the United States. Can't argue with that, but the point I am discussing is the lie to the American people. It should not have mattered what those in power *wanted*, but somehow it turned into the main focus. Poor Colin Powell threw away his chance at a sure-thing political career. The "media" didn't invent it. GWB did. I doubt that. Perhaps Karl Rove did. But, whoever, it was invented FOR the media.Tell that to the people of New York. It would surprise me if the majority of the people of NYC did/do not understand that "terror" is an intangible. That profits accrue from war is not a bad thing. Charitable institutions do not build mighty military machines. We have the best military in the world because profitable companies know what they're doing. Of course it's not a bad thing, but when it trumps the stated reason and becomes the main focus of the people in power, it is part of the lie.Bush and Cheney should probably have been prosecuted for war crimes. There's no such thing as a war crime, which is why they weren't, and never will be, prosecuted. Then, we should not be part of international agreements that specify there are, and we should not be a part of holding that hammer over other countries. Personally, I think the lie was a war crime, but am not sure it could be identified as such. If not, should be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2010 16:33:29 GMT -5
the point I am discussing is the lie to the American people. It should not have mattered what those in power *wanted*, but somehow it turned into the main focus. Poor Colin Powell threw away his chance at a sure-thing political career. He missed his chance to be the first mulatto President. Seriously, he never wanted the job anyway. And his mock indignation over GWB's actions leading up to the Iraq war strike me as a little self-serving if not naïve. I doubt that. Perhaps Karl Rove did. But, whoever, it was invented FOR the media. Don't blame the media. Blame those who watch "the media." Why do refuse to judge those who refuse to think critically? It would surprise me if the majority of the people of NYC did/do not understand that "terror" is an intangible. Terrorists are not intangible. They are real. In my opinion every effort should be made to identify and extinguish permanently every one of them -- including their family members. . I'd go after their children, too. it's not a bad thing, but hen it trumps the stated reason and becomes the main focus of the people in power, it is part of the lie. I am not convinced the purpose of the Iraq war is or ever was commercial. Our entry into the war may have been a mistake, but it wasn't a commercial venture. Then, we should not be part of international agreements that specify there are, and we should not be a part of holding that hammer over other countries. I agree, particularly since the agreements aren't worth the paper they're printed on anyway. the lie was a war crime, but am not sure it could be identified as such. There are no war criminals or war crimes. There are only trumped-up charges upon the losers by the victors.
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 22, 2010 3:03:48 GMT -5
I wonder if there is any prejudice here? What, in saying life is cheap to Muslims? It's simply a statement of fact. No it is not. It is a statement without basis., a prejudicial statement In fact there is far more evidence of the US regarding human life as cheap, especially human life outside the US, but I would not hold that argument, because it is futile and cheap
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 22, 2010 3:25:38 GMT -5
funnily enough the deputy PM mentioned going to war on a lie yesterday in the commons... and i did not elect tony blair twice[3 times actually]we dont elect the PM here but the party] sorry but your quite wrong to say if its ""not a crime if its not against the law """as the expences row shows.... and now you you say i am a pacifist...or lor..this gets better and better first a lefty and now a pacifist..... ..just how wrong can you be
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 22, 2010 3:31:37 GMT -5
There are no war criminals or war crimes. There are only trumped-up charges upon the losers by the victors. there are of course WAR crimes and CRIMINALS who comit war crimes crimes which are only committed because of war...true that what these days are called war crimes has muddied the water...but none the less these war crimes exist and they are not necessarily trumped up by the losers either... ..whether you agree with this is irelevent
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 7:27:10 GMT -5
It is the height of absurdity to REFUSE to condemn crimes carried out by a government on the wholly specious grounds that NO action by ANY government IS or CAN be unlawful and yet to condemn the same actions committed by private individuals.
It is a bizarrely socialist approach to 'justice.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 10:30:59 GMT -5
It is the height of absurdity to REFUSE to condemn crimes carried out by a government on the wholly specious grounds that NO action by ANY government IS or CAN be unlawful and yet to condemn the same actions committed by private individuals. I'm not condemning those of private individuals, either, unless they are part of my society. Condemnations which have no practical effect on the condemned only make the condemners feel better.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jul 22, 2010 12:56:22 GMT -5
In this case, though, it was the lie and ruse presented to the American people. Would we have bought it if we'd been told they needed to invade a country to make an example and Iraq had been in our sites for years anyway? Some would have, but I have to believe the majority would not. I think the main reason Bush and Cheney were not held accountable is because too many members of congress + private industry would be recognized as equally at fault.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 13:38:13 GMT -5
In this case, though, it was the lie and ruse presented to the American people. Would we have bought it if we'd been told they needed to invade a country to make an example and Iraq had been in our sites for years anyway? Some would have, but I have to believe the majority would not. I think the main reason Bush and Cheney were not held accountable is because too many members of congress + private industry would be recognized as equally at fault. Saddam Hussein tricked GWB, directly and indirectly, into believing he was a threat to the United States. Saddam wanted the war. He went out of his way to provoke us. GWB is a scapegoat, nothing more. He was a lot more stupid than conniving, but the American people weren't -- and still aren't -- any smarter.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jul 22, 2010 17:03:19 GMT -5
In this case, though, it was the lie and ruse presented to the American people. Would we have bought it if we'd been told they needed to invade a country to make an example and Iraq had been in our sites for years anyway? Some would have, but I have to believe the majority would not. I think the main reason Bush and Cheney were not held accountable is because too many members of congress + private industry would be recognized as equally at fault. Saddam Hussein tricked GWB, directly and indirectly, into believing he was a threat to the United States. Saddam wanted the war. He went out of his way to provoke us. GWB is a scapegoat, nothing more. He was a lot more stupid than conniving, but the American people weren't -- and still aren't -- any smarter. Saddam did provoke, but I think we knew better. We had people swarming all around him. Bush was a puppet president. He was a personally likable kind of guy with a bit of charisma (well .. compared to A. Gore, anyway) and a thirst for showing up Poppy. I think he was led by Rove and pushed (knee to the back) by Cheney. The whole gang knew they'd never be held accountable, so decided to go for broke. I'll always think of them as criminals as will many others. They destroyed a chance for a decent legacy in the process of indulging their baser instincts. jmo
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 22, 2010 17:36:20 GMT -5
Life is cheap to Muslims. 100,000 is nothing to them. Hmmm... I wonder if there is any prejudice here? not at all. just the factual REALITY
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 22, 2010 17:41:20 GMT -5
you are incorrect. in the first place, NO ONE started the viet nam war. it had been going on for 1500 years. the only thing that changed was the chaps who got their azzes kicked. when the french turned tail after demben pheu in 1953, it was dwight who sent in american advisors. there were only something like 54 or so at that time, but, obviously, the number increased over time, until, dick had half a million troops in vietnam, laos and cambodia I feel sure that you are right But wasn't it JFK that started the heavy US involvement? jfk sent more, yeah, but it was lbj who did the "surge". actually, we had very few combat troops there until the gulf of tonkin, which was pretty much a cia production. once again, just as iraq is for the benefit of haliburton and exxon mobil, viet nam was solely to benefit dow chemical and dole. we overturned the legitimate election because the people voted for a communist, and the massive invasion began
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 22, 2010 17:43:01 GMT -5
Saddam Hussein tricked GWB, directly and indirectly, into believing he was a threat to the United States. Saddam wanted the war. He went out of his way to provoke us. GWB is a scapegoat, nothing more. He was a lot more stupid than conniving, but the American people weren't -- and still aren't -- any smarter. Saddam did provoke, but I think we knew better. We had people swarming all around him. Bush was a puppet president. He was a personally likable kind of guy with a bit of charisma (well .. compared to A. Gore, anyway) and a thirst for showing up Poppy. I think he was led by Rove and pushed (knee to the back) by Cheney. The whole gang knew they'd never be held accountable, so decided to go for broke. I'll always think of them as criminals as will many others. They destroyed a chance for a decent legacy in the process of indulging their baser instincts. jmo might be just yours, but it is one which is a million percent correct
|
|