Bush & Saddam Should Stand Trial

[Mephisto]

Who doesn't hate a war criminal?

I know, I know this is just the opinion of one man, but that man just might have the credentials to know what he's talking about:

Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor

Aaron Glantz
OneWorld US
Fri., Aug. 25, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 25 (OneWorld) - A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferencz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/138319/1/4536
_____________

This sounds pretty familiar too . . .

He said the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the war.

"Every war will lead to attacks on civilians," he said. "Crimes against humanity, destruction beyond the needs of military necessity, rape of civilians, plunder--that always happens in wartime. So my answer personally, after working for 60 years on this problem and [as someone] who hates to see all these young people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that you've got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes."
___________

His opinions are only those of one man, but I don't think anyone here can complain that he's being partisan in his opinion.

[BPSCG]

His opinions are only those of one man, but I don't think anyone here can complain that he's being partisan in his opinion.Nah, not partisan at all. "Bush is like the Nazis."

Is there no well so filled with idiocy that you won't happily slurp from it?

[Darth Rotor]

Who doesn't hate a war criminal?

I know, I know this is just the opinion of one man, but that man just might have the credentials to know what he's talking about:

Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor

Aaron Glantz
OneWorld US
Fri., Aug. 25, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 25 (OneWorld) - A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferencz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/138319/1/4536
_____________

This sounds pretty familiar too . . .

He said the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the war.

"Every war will lead to attacks on civilians," he said. "Crimes against humanity, destruction beyond the needs of military necessity, rape of civilians, plunder--that always happens in wartime. So my answer personally, after working for 60 years on this problem and [as someone] who hates to see all these young people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that you've got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes."
___________

His opinions are only those of one man, but I don't think anyone here can complain that he's being partisan in his opinion.
I am sure this gentleman is aware of the futility of trying to outlaw war, as an infamous 1928 treaty attempted to do. If you are interested, take a peak at the Kellogg-Briand Pact, where 60 nations agreed to outlaw war. Notice how well it worked. :rolleyes: How do you enforce that law? With force. What is war? Armed force. It is a self defeating course of action, not to mention hypocritical.

So, I have to ask this genius, who is going to bell the cat? Who is going to arrest, and forward to any international kangaroo court, George W Bush?

I am dying to hear his answer, given the impotence shown by the international community in the Milosivic farce trial.

DR

[Mephisto]

Nah, not partisan at all. "Bush is like the Nazis."

Is there no well so filled with idiocy that you won't happily slurp from it?

Don't be stupid! I merely posted the opinion of a Nuremburg prosecutor. He's the one you should talk to if you believe Bush is being unfairly portrayed.

I suppose you're going to tell me that you don't agree with a prosecutor who worked on the behalf of thousands upon thousands of Jews who were tortured and mercilessly killed during WWII?

[Cylinder]

I suppose you're going to tell me that you don't agree with a prosecutor who worked on the behalf of thousands upon thousands of Jews who were tortured and mercilessly killed during WWII?

You really are morphing into a living, breathing logical fallacy. That's unfortunate.

[Upchurch]

Maybe I should have taken the time to read the article, but what is the war crime that Bush is being accused of?

[Cylinder]

Maybe I should have taken the time to read the article, but what is the war crime that Bush is being accused of?

Waging wars of aggression, according to the quote. That one is easy to refute, since the US made a separate cease-fire agreement with Iraq in 1991 and combat operations had not ceased in the intervening period.

[Mephisto]

I am sure this gentleman is aware of the futility of trying to outlaw war, as an infamous 1928 treaty attempted to do. If you are interested, take a peak at the Kellogg-Briand Pact, where 60 nations agreed to outlaw war. Notice how well it worked. :rolleyes: How do you enforce that law? With force. What is war? Armed force. It is a self defeating course of action, not to mention hypocritical.

So, I have to ask this genius, who is going to bell the cat? Who is going to arrest, and forward to any international kangaroo court, George W Bush?

I am dying to hear his answer, given the impotence shown by the international community in the Milosivic farce trial.

DR

I agree with you DR, but I think it's at least somewhat important to announce the obvious - war is bad for people. You're right about how to enforce such a law, and I wouldn't expect any country to step up to lead Bush to the gallows, but SOMEONE should formally voice the opinion that the world is comprised of mostly innocent people (of all cultures, races and religions) and we should collectively condemn imperialistic practices.

Or, we could just scoff that we've done anything that warrants being compared to Saddam and continue with business as usual killing and dying in Iraq.

[Katana]

Take a look at the story. It's not about outlawing war, it's about the fact that Bush did not abide by the UN charter. It sounds like that was his war crime.

"Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime," the 87-year-old Ferencz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council.

[Apollyon]

I agree with you DR, but I think it's at least somewhat important to announce the obvious - war is bad for people. You're right about how to enforce such a law, and I wouldn't expect any country to step up to lead Bush to the gallows, but SOMEONE should formally voice the opinion that the world is comprised of mostly innocent people (of all cultures, races and religions) and we should collectively condemn imperialistic practices.
Stupid ol' Bush can't even be a proper imperialist. He gave the damn country back to them. What an idiot.

[Darth Rotor]

Stupid ol' Bush can't even be a proper imperialist. He gave the damn country back to them. What an idiot.
For an interesting look at American Imperialism, check out Meade's "Special Providence" which came out before the Iraq War, and IIRC before 9-11. His term is "global hegemon," and he examines the influences of four common US foreign policy styles/archetypes on the policy formulation of America, both pre and post hegemon era. Well worth a look.

DR

[Upchurch]

Take a look at the story. It's not about outlawing war, it's about the fact that Bush did not abide by the UN charter. It sounds like that was his war crime.
Man, I have a few contract/agreements I wish I could remove my signature from when they became inconvenient

[Mephisto]

Stupid ol' Bush can't even be a proper imperialist. He gave the damn country back to them. What an idiot.

We're giving it back to them?

Iraq Facilities
A 20 April 2003 report in The New York Times asserted that "the U.S. is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region." The report, citing anonymous sources, referred to one base at Baghdad's international airport, another near Al-Nasiriyah in the south [presumably meaning Tallil AB], the third at the H-1 airstrip in the western desert, and the fourth at Bashur AB in the north.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq-intro.htm
___________

"And many analysts feel that the administration wants to keep a presence in Iraq irrespective of Iraqi military preparedness in order to safeguard America's larger strategic interests in the region (chiefly oil).

Joost Hiltermann, of the International Crisis Group (ICG), told Asia Times Online it would be strange if America didn't intend to stay in Iraq. "One of the reasons they invaded, as far as I can tell, is because they needed to shift their military operation from Saudi Arabia," he said, "and Iraq was probably the easiest one in terms of a big country to support their presence in the Gulf." The idea that the US wanted to swap Iraq for Saudi Arabia was acknowledged by then-deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz in an interview with Vanity Fair in 2003.

Persistent reports that the US is constructing permanent bases in Iraq lend credence to the view that the Bush administration plans to stay."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH06Ak02.html
___________

US bases in Iraq: sticky politics, hard math

By David R. Francis

If a new Iraq government should agree to let American forces stay on, how many bases will the US request?

One, as the United States Army currently maintains in Honduras? Six, the number of installations it lists in the Netherlands. Or maybe 12?

The Pentagon isn't saying.

But a dozen is the number of so-called "enduring bases" located by John Pike, director of GlobalSecurities.org. His military affairs website gives their names. They include, for example, Camp Victory at the Baghdad airfield and Camp Renegade in Kirkuk. The Chicago Tribune last March said US engineers are constructing 14 "enduring bases," but Mr. Pike hasn't located two of them.

Note the terminology "enduring" bases. That's Pentagon-speak for long-term encampments - not necessarily permanent, but not just a tent on a wood platform either. It all suggests a planned indefinite stay on Iraqi soil that will cost US taxpayers for years to come.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html
___________

Chicago Tribune March 23, 2004

14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq
Long-term military presence planned

By Christine Spolar

From the ashes of abandoned Iraqi army bases, U.S. military engineers are overseeing the building of an enhanced system of American bases designed to last for years.

Last year, as troops poured over the Kuwait border to invade Iraq, the U.S. military set up at least 120 forward operating bases. Then came hundreds of expeditionary and temporary bases that were to last between six months and a year for tactical operations while providing soldiers with such comforts as e-mail and Internet access.

Now U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years. The bases also would be key outposts for Bush administration policy advisers.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm

[Katana]

Man, I have a few contract/agreements I wish I could remove my signature from when they became inconvenient

Yeah. I picked up on that, too. Unbelievable...then again, it's Bush.

[Apollyon]

So because we have a military presence in Germany and Japan we never gave back those countries either?

Since you seem to adore definitions - imperialism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=imperialism)

[fishbob]

Is there no well so filled with idiocy that you won't happily slurp from it?

I like that.
It applies nicely to many here.
Bush can do no wrong - Bush can do no wrong - Bush can do no wrong - Bush can do no wrong.

[Mephisto]

So because we have a military presence in Germany and Japan we never gave back those countries either?

Since you seem to adore definitions - imperialism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=imperialism)

You're comparing two Imperialistic countries responsible for a world war costing untold lives with Iraq? First, Japan attacked us, Iraq did not . . .

And now who is comparing our actions to Hitler? I never said anything about Germany. ;)

(edited to ask) Which of these definitions couldn't be used to describe our actions in Iraq?

1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
2. advocacy of imperial interests.
3. an imperial system of government.
4. imperial government.
5. British. the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.

[Apollyon]

You're comparing two Imperialistic countries responsible for a world war costing untold lives with Iraq? First, Japan attacked us, Iraq did not . . .
Germany didn't attack us either.

And now who is comparing our actions to Hitler? I never said anything about Germany. ;)
I never once mentioned Hitler. In fact, it was you who did so as my references were to post-Hitler Germany.

(edited to ask) Which of these definitions couldn't be used to describe our actions in Iraq?

1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
2. advocacy of imperial interests.
3. an imperial system of government.
4. imperial government.
5. British. the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.
I'd say 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

But all the rest apply.

[Jimbo07]

It applies nicely to many here.
Bush can do no wrong - Bush can do no wrong - Bush can do no wrong - Bush can do no wrong.

It's handy, really.

So long as the U.S. isn't a party to the ICC, nobody is going to try members of this administration for being either stupid or belligerent.

[Beerina]

We're giving it back to them?

Iraq Facilities
A 20 April 2003 report in The New York Times asserted that "the U.S. is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region." The report, citing anonymous sources, referred to one base at Baghdad's international airport, another near Al-Nasiriyah in the south [presumably meaning Tallil AB], the third at the H-1 airstrip in the western desert, and the fourth at Bashur AB in the north.

So...we're staying for quite awhile in a country we invaded and are hoping to turn peaceful and free? We're still in Germany and Japan and South Korea, last time I checked. And I wouldn't say we haven't "given it back" to any of them just because we have bases there, still.

Would you?

[a_unique_person]

"Every war will lead to attacks on civilians," he said. "Crimes against humanity, destruction beyond the needs of military necessity, rape of civilians, plunder--that always happens in wartime. So my answer personally, after working for 60 years on this problem and [as someone] who hates to see all these young people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that you've got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes."

Amen to that.

[Darth Rotor]

Amen to that.
"Youve got to quit farting."

As effective an admonition to human beings as "you need to stop doing this nasty war thing."

DR

[a_unique_person]

"Youve got to quit farting."

As effective an admonition to human beings as "you need to stop doing this nasty war thing."

DR

Just don't ever talk about 'targetted' wars. When you go to war, civilians will die.

[Mephisto]

You really are morphing into a living, breathing logical fallacy. That's unfortunate.

No more a fallacy than the "Compassionate Conservative." ;)

[Mephisto]

So...we're staying for quite awhile in a country we invaded and are hoping to turn peaceful and free? We're still in Germany and Japan and South Korea, last time I checked. And I wouldn't say we haven't "given it back" to any of them just because we have bases there, still.

Would you?

I suppose not, but I think the occupation in Japan's instance was an agreed part of their surrender, although I'm not sure in Germany's case. I also believe that in both Japan and Germany the occupation is symbiotic and neither suffered a determined insurgency (probably because we didn't invade them to shove Democracy down their throat).

At what point would we admit that our presence might be the cause of a great deal of the problems in Iraq? And what if Bush were to be tried in an international court for war crimes (not that it will ever happen)? Wouldn't our occupation also be illegal? I've never personally accepted, "I was under orders," for the multitude of atrocities committed by Nazi soldiers, but I don't want the world to see our soldiers in any similar light.

Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Iraq didn't have WMD. They didn't greet us as liberators. We didn't invade for self-defense. The oil flow ISN'T paying for the war. Thousands of Iraqis and Americans die every month in Iraq. There is no end in sight and we are urged to "stay the course." Yet, the neo-cons don't hesitate to scoff at the parallels drawn by a prosecuter in the Nuremburg War Trials?

[Mephisto]

"Youve got to quit farting."

As effective an admonition to human beings as "you need to stop doing this nasty war thing."

DR

You're right, and this crowd has been hitting the beans and the halibut 'a la old Toby pretty hard! ;)

[davefoc]

Mephisto wrote: At what point would we admit that our presence might be the cause of a great deal of the problems in Iraq?

I don't know the answer to this. Bushco has an uncontestable history of being wrong with their various pronouncements about Iraq. IMHO, Bushco has a history of bizarre incompetence and corruption with respect to Iraq.

So at what point would Bushco, take stock of the situation and change direction if that change required an admission of error? Bushco, up to now has shown no indication that they would ever do such a thing. They have fought tooth and nail to prevent independent investigations of 9/11, Iraq and Katrina. Why? I think because Bushco fears exposure more than Bushco is interested in the common good. At what point, would Bushco act for the common good above the interest of their cronies. I am not optimistic that there is any such point.

[Mephisto]

Mephisto wrote:

I don't know the answer to this. Bushco has an uncontestable history of being wrong with their various pronouncements about Iraq. IMHO, Bushco has a history of bizarre incompetence and corruption with respect to Iraq.

You're right about the incompetant predictions, and the corruption in the entire area combined with our previous ties to Saddam always made me feel that this war was sometimes more about destroying evidence . . .

It amazes me that anyone can even suggest "staying the course," when it's been one failure after another.

[BPSCG]

I also believe that in both Japan and Germany the occupation is symbiotic and neither suffered a determined insurgency (probably because we didn't invade them to shove Democracy down their throat). Japan and Germany didn't have significant insurrection against U.S. troops in large part because their countries had been devastated by war. Not just the defeat of their armies, but the destruction of their cities. They accepted surrender on unconditional terms; by so doing, they implicitly stated, "We give up; please don't kill us any more. Do whatever else you want to us, but if you don't kill us any more, we won't resist."

Unless and until you destroy both an enemy's ability and his will to fight, you will have an insurgency. We did not destroy the Iraqi army; we defeated them utterly, but large numbers of them just vanished back into the civilian population. We did not destroy Iraq's cities and kill frightful numbers of its civilian population. Compared with the desolation visited on Japan and Germany, or America's southern states during the Civil War, Iraq suffered trivial damage. Lesson learned: You can fight the U.S. and not pay a terrible cost for it. Hey, let's fight them again!

Robert E. Lee wrestled with this issue in the days before Appomattox. Some of his generals urged that he scatter his army and have them fight a guerilla war. Lee decided to take the unconditional surrender route (he was fortunate in that Grant was as generous a victor as he was a remorseless enemy) because he saw only years of desolation ahead for the South by starting a guerilla war. He decided the South had been devastated enough by the war, that the time had come to end it and rebuild.

People in Iraq, having not suffered a war of total destruction, apparently feel differently. Were Lee alive today, he could show what would have happened to the South if he'd listened to his generals, by pointing to Iraq.

[Mephisto]

Unless and until you destroy both an enemy's ability and his will to fight, you will have an insurgency. We did not destroy the Iraqi army; we defeated them utterly, but large numbers of them just vanished back into the civilian population.

Well, we agree up until the point about the Iraqi army just vanishing into the civilian population:

The Bush administration's failure to plan adequately for the postwar period has been well documented. The Pentagon, for example, ignored extensive State Department studies of how to achieve stability after an invasion, administer a postwar government and rebuild the country. And administration officials have acknowledged the mistake of dismantling the Iraqi army and canceling pensions to its veteran officers -- which many say hindered security, enhanced anti-U.S. feeling and aided what would later become a violent insurgency.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723.html
___________

Mistake theory:

Despite recommendations by seasoned military leaders and others, U.S. troop levels were not sufficient for smooth occupation and establishment of peace and order in Iraq. Disbanding the Iraqi army, allowing chaos in the streets and other mistakes resulted in a significant ongoing insurgency, near-civil war and deaths and injuries to U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians.

Plan theory:

If the goal was actually to stay in Iraq indefinitely, it might have been counterproductive to establish order, a working government, some measure of social cohesion and peace. If all had gone smoothly in the post-invasion occupation, many would call for U.S. forces to leave Iraq, mission accomplished. The turmoil and violence there actually provide a rationale for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11401

[HeavyAaron]

Plan theory:

If the goal was actually to stay in Iraq indefinitely, it might have been counterproductive to establish order, a working government, some measure of social cohesion and peace. If all had gone smoothly in the post-invasion occupation, many would call for U.S. forces to leave Iraq, mission accomplished. The turmoil and violence there actually provide a rationale for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11401

I have never seen the word "plan" used in place of "conspiracy" before. Interesting.

Aaron

[Mephisto]

I have never seen the word "plan" used in place of "conspiracy" before. Interesting.

Aaron

It depends on whose using it. ;)

[Kevin_Lowe]

Waging wars of aggression, according to the quote. That one is easy to refute, since the US made a separate cease-fire agreement with Iraq in 1991 and combat operations had not ceased in the intervening period.

Even if the USA had the legal option of restarting GW1 at will, and that idea is total fantasy, the authorisation for the use of force in GW1 was to get Iraq out of Kuwait not to conquer Iraq and replace it with a government of the USA's design.

I am nigh certain this is not the first time you have tried this argument out, nor the first time you have had these facts pointed out to you.

[Darth Rotor]

Just don't ever talk about 'targetted' wars. When you go to war, civilians will die.
Yes indeed, in war people die. Why do you focus so on civilians? Soldiers are people too: each is a unique person in his own right.

What is this "targetted war' thing? It lies beyond my ken. I didn't use the term. Who does, and what does it mean?

"Precision weapons" (a fancy term for guided munitions) allow for less error in Circular Error of Probability (how close to the bullseye you actually hit) but nothing yet built by man has a 100% reliability rate, and no man yet conceived, and born of woman, has achieved perfection. War is an inherently human endeavor, with all that being human entails.

While "precision guided weapons" reduce the odds that non-combatants will get hit, they can't preclude that chance. The bomb can't tell people where to go to avoid getting hit, and sometimes, the wrong place gets chosen to get bombed, and sometimes, people are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

War gets people killed.

Next profundity?

DR

[NeilC]

The professors argument is pretty weak.

It all falls down here: "the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the war."

Well that some atrocities might happen is predictable. But not specifically those. This being true, one would have to try anyone who ever starts or maybe even responds to a military engagement. This means outlawing war which is never going to happen and wouldn't work anyway since people would rather go to prison than not fight for what they believe in.

[Katana]

Kevin, I love your sigs! :D

Edited to add another delicious Dustin quote:

You can learn surgery without attending a college. There's nothing you can do in a college that you couldn't do apprenticing with a real surgeon or practicing on kidabers.
This is from his college is BS thread.

[Darth Rotor]

The professors argument is pretty weak.
Most Ivory Tower tripe is.

Well that some atrocities might happen is predictable. But not specifically those. This being true, one would have to try anyone who ever starts or maybe even responds to a military engagement. This means outlawing war which is never going to happen and wouldn't work anyway since people would rather go to prison than not fight for what they believe in.
Thanks to you for fleshing out my Kellog-Briand thought. *tips cap*

DR

[FreeChile]

Japan and Germany didn't have significant insurrection against U.S. troops in large part because their countries had been devastated by war. Not just the defeat of their armies, but the destruction of their cities. They accepted surrender on unconditional terms; by so doing, they implicitly stated, "We give up; please don't kill us any more. Do whatever else you want to us, but if you don't kill us any more, we won't resist."

Unless and until you destroy both an enemy's ability and his will to fight, you will have an insurgency.
That is what is called beating the insurgents into submission and it is not the cause of the insurgency nor the only solution to it. Which do you think is more likely to terminate the insurgency, terminating the invasion or beating the insurgents into submission?

We did not destroy the Iraqi army; we defeated them utterly, but large numbers of them just vanished back into the civilian population. We did not destroy Iraq's cities and kill frightful numbers of its civilian population. Compared with the desolation visited on Japan and Germany, or America's southern states during the Civil War, Iraq suffered trivial damage. Lesson learned: You can fight the U.S. and not pay a terrible cost for it. Hey, let's fight them again!
That seems to be the lesson you want to learn from these events. So you’re telling me a suicide bomber decides to terminate his life because he believes the Americans won’t kill the rest of his clan if he attacks them? There is, among other things, no religion, nationalism, pride, and threat to his survival motivating his rebellion. If there were no real motivation, that would make him and not the US the main aggressor, wouldn’t it?

Robert E. Lee wrestled with this issue in the days before Appomattox. Some of his generals urged that he scatter his army and have them fight a guerilla war. Lee decided to take the unconditional surrender route (he was fortunate in that Grant was as generous a victor as he was a remorseless enemy) because he saw only years of desolation ahead for the South by starting a guerilla war. He decided the South had been devastated enough by the war, that the time had come to end it and rebuild.
There are many factors to consider when comparing WWII and the Civil War to the present. You can’t over-simplify the way you are doing here.

People in Iraq, having not suffered a war of total destruction, apparently feel differently.
Why do you insist on blaming the Iraqis for the insurgency, because they have not suffered enough?

Were Lee alive today, he could show what would have happened to the South if he'd listened to his generals, by pointing to Iraq.
This is just idiotic.

[Mephisto]

This is just idiotic.

Or as we know it - this is just par for the course. ;)

[BPSCG]

That is what is called beating the insurgents into submission and it is not the cause of the insurgency nor the only solution to it. Which do you think is more likely to terminate the insurgency, terminating the invasion or beating the insurgents into submission?


That seems to be the lesson you want to learn from these events. So you’re telling me a suicide bomber decides to terminate his life because he believes the Americans won’t kill the rest of his clan if he attacks them? There is, among other things, no religion, nationalism, pride, and threat to his survival motivating his rebellion. If there were no real motivation, that would make him and not the US the main aggressor, wouldn’t it?


There are many factors to consider when comparing WWII and the Civil War to the present. You can’t over-simplify the way you are doing here.


Why do you insist on blaming the Iraqis for the insurgency, because they have not suffered enough?


This is just idiotic.You missed the point, from top to bottom. I wasn't saying you beat the insurgents into submission. I was saying that if the Iraq invasion had wrought death and destruction comparable to what Germany and Japan had sufferred in WW II, or the Confederacy had suffered in the American Civil War, there would have been no Iraqi insurrection to begin with. When you have demonstrated that you are ready, willing, and able to utterly destroy your enemy, and his only way to keep you from doing that is to stop resisting you, he will stop resisting you rather than face destruction. People here talk about "imposing democracy," as if that's something bad, but that is exactly what we did to Germany and Japan, countries that, before WW II, were no more democratic than Iraq.

The ugly question is, is it worth the terrible cost? Would the world today be better off if the Nazis and the Japanese had extended their savagery no farther than their own borders, and not dragged the rest of the world into a war? Is having peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Germany and Japan today worth the hundreds of millions of lives it cost?

Would having a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Iraq today be worth the destruction that might be necessary to bring it about?

Would having a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Islamic middle east tomorrow be worth the millions of deaths that might be necessary to bring it about?

I'll be the first to say I don't know the answer to those questions - they're questions for better philosophers and ethicists than I. But I fear events will one day force us to to answer "yes."

[Mephisto]

I'll be the first to say I don't know the answer to those questions - they're questions for better philosophers and ethicists than I. But I fear events will one day force us to to answer "yes."

You're probably right, after all General George Custer was a hero, Buffalo Bill Cody was a great frontiersman, Korea and Vietnam weren't wars, Reagan conquered Communism and we're in Iraq to protect America . . .

There will always be people who remember the truth in spite of what history "decides."

[BPSCG]

You're probably right, after all General George Custer was a hero, Buffalo Bill Cody was a great frontiersman, Korea and Vietnam weren't wars, Reagan conquered Communism and we're in Iraq to protect America . . .

There will always be people who remember the truth in spite of what history "decides."What Jocko said. What are you on?

[a_unique_person]

Yes indeed, in war people die. Why do you focus so on civilians? Soldiers are people too: each is a unique person in his own right.

What is this "targetted war' thing? It lies beyond my ken. I didn't use the term. Who does, and what does it mean?

"Precision weapons" (a fancy term for guided munitions) allow for less error in Circular Error of Probability (how close to the bullseye you actually hit) but nothing yet built by man has a 100% reliability rate, and no man yet conceived, and born of woman, has achieved perfection. War is an inherently human endeavor, with all that being human entails.

While "precision guided weapons" reduce the odds that non-combatants will get hit, they can't preclude that chance. The bomb can't tell people where to go to avoid getting hit, and sometimes, the wrong place gets chosen to get bombed, and sometimes, people are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

War gets people killed.

Next profundity?

DR

That is exactly what worries me. People no longer fear war.

[Mephisto]

What Jocko said. What are you on?

Are you accusing me of doing drugs too? I'm surprised the moderators let that kind of accusation go unnoticed, especially considering that you guys hurl insult after insult.

For your information, I'm at work, I've got three computers printing and I use this one to be the splinter in your ass as you and Jerko slide down the bannister of life. You're on after being on all day too, what's your excuse?

[a_unique_person]

Are you accusing me of doing drugs too? I'm surprised the moderators let that kind of accusation go unnoticed, especially considering that you guys hurl insult after insult.

For your information, I'm at work, I've got three computers printing and I use this one to be the splinter in your ass as you and Jerko slide down the bannister of life. You're on after being on all day too, what's your excuse?

When they have nothing reasonable or logical to say, it's their standard fallback. Hurl insults. I just hurl them back.

[Mephisto]

When they have nothing reasonable or logical to say, it's their standard fallback. Hurl insults. I just hurl them back.

Yeah, and they've been doing that a lot lately! Is it because defending their beliefs is getting more difficult or because they are becoming less adept? Anyway, I'll bet they're funny in person when they're angry. ;)

[BPSCG]

Are you accusing me of doing drugs too? No, I'm asking.

I explained why "imposing democracy" on a country can have a terrible cost, and wondered if the manifest benefits of democracy make the cost of that imposition worthwhile.

You replied with a completely irrelevant random neural firing:after all General George Custer was a hero, Buffalo Bill Cody was a great frontiersman, Korea and Vietnam weren't wars, Reagan conquered Communism and we're in Iraq to protect America . . .

There will always be people who remember the truth in spite of what history "decides."That was your third completely irrelevant post in about 24 hours. This is evidence of some sort of cognitive dissonance, to swipe Jocko's apt term. Whether it's caused by drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, inattention from too much pressure at work, inability to multitask effectively on three computers, or some underlying physiological deficit (you had suggested manic depression), I suggest you tend to the matter.

[Mephisto]

No, I'm asking.

So, then it's perfectly feasible that you're NOT insulting me, and you're actually concerned for my well-being. BTW - what kind of hallucinogens are YOU taking?

I explained why "imposing democracy" on a country can have a terrible cost, and wondered if the manifest benefits of democracy make the cost of that imposition worthwhile.

That's a good one, YOU explaining why imposing democracy on a country can have a terrible cost is like George Bush telling the Iraqi people how lucky they are we invaded.

You replied with a completely irrelevant random neural firing:That was your third completely irrelevant post in about 24 hours. This is evidence of some sort of cognitive dissonance, to swipe Jocko's apt term. Whether it's caused by drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, inattention from too much pressure at work, inability to multitask effectively on three computers, or some underlying physiological deficit (you had suggested manic depression), I suggest you tend to the matter.

My assertions are not irrelevant or random - maybe just not immediately apparent to you, probably because it's difficult to see past your own political poop. Your assertion that . . .

I'll be the first to say I don't know the answer to those questions - they're questions for better philosophers and ethicists than I. But I fear events will one day force us to to answer "yes."


. . . suggest that "history will tell" (where have we heard THAT before), and I simply agreed with you. However, I also indicated that I thought history wasn't always accurate and had more to do with WHO writes that history than what actually happened.

Just to help you out a bit. ;)

Custer was a great hero

"In late 1875, Sioux and Cheyenne Indians defiantly left their reservations, outraged over the continued intrusions of whites into their sacred lands in the Black Hills. They gathered in Montana with the great warrior Sitting Bull to fight for their lands. The following spring, two victories over the US Cavalry emboldened them to fight on in the summer of 1876. To force the large Indian army back to the reservations, the Army dispatched three columns to attack in coordinated fashion, one of which contained Lt. Colonel George Custer and the Seventh Cavalry. Spotting the Sioux village about fifteen miles away along the Rosebud River on June 25, Custer also found a nearby group of about forty warriors. Ignoring orders to wait, he decided to attack before they could alert the main party. He did not realize that the number of warriors in the village numbered three times his strength."

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pfcuster.htm

He wasn't a great hero, he was another imperialistic buffoon waging war on the terrorists of his time.
_____________

Buffalo Bill was a great frontiersman

"The railroads allowed easy access to the buffalo by anyone who wanted to shoot and they did, right from the trains. Backed up by an unlimited supply of new accurate breech-loading rifles and plenty of ammunition, a wild rush of White buffalo hunters came to the buffalo country. In 1867 "Buffalo Bill" Cody entered into a contract with the Kansas Pacific Railway, then in course of construction through western Kansas, at a monthly salary of $500, to deliver all the buffalo meat that would be required by the army of laborers engaged in building the road. In eighteen months he killed 4,280 buffalos. "Buffalo Bill" was only one of thousands of hunters."

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Atrium/4832/buffalo4.html

So, our decimation of the wildlife and our disrespect for the environment started out early.
____________

Korea & Vietnam weren't wars

"The United States has launched all of its major armed conflicts since World War II as police actions. In these events, Congress had not made a formal declaration of war, yet the President, as the commander-in-chief, has claimed authority to send in the armed forces when he deemed necessary. Nonetheless, limited Congressional control has been asserted, in terms of funding appropriations. The Korean War and the Vietnam War, strictly speaking, were not declared wars but police actions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_action

Guess I should drop my membership to the V.F.W. and join the V.F.P.A. (Veterans of Foreign Police Actions).
___________

Reagan Conquered Communism

"As the fortieth President of the United States, Ronald Wilson Reagan renewed America’s confidence and made the world a better place. Known as the “Great Communicator,” his unwavering vision of democracy and consummate leadership skills are credited with bringing the Cold War to an end—and guiding the U.S. to new heights of national pride, technological achievement and economic prosperity."

http://www.foxstore.com/detail.html?item=1347&u=1104400212&gclid=CPG9yIewh4cCFQ9OWAod7Sw9bQ

He accomplished and instituted great change in this country - rabid conservatism, the war on drugs and he almost got to call catsup a vegetable serving in school lunches.

"But what really ticked off Ingraham was my response to Blitzer's remark that Reagan was "a conservative Republican who really altered the political landscape in this country to this very day." Indeed he did, I said, adding, "In fact, the gap between the wealthy and the poor increased during his eight years, and has continued on that trend. He had draconian cuts in food stamps and school lunch programs. Remember, catsup as a vegetable and Medicaid [cuts]?"

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1496
__________

As for my last assertion, that our soldiers in Iraq are protecting us here at home - I guess history will forget how British airport security and law enforcement uncovered a plot by terrorists to (once again) use jet liners as weapons, and there will undoubtedly be more in the future, thus obliterating the notion that, "We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here."

But of course, history will tell. ;)

[a_unique_person]

You're right about the incompetant predictions, and the corruption in the entire area combined with our previous ties to Saddam always made me feel that this war was sometimes more about destroying evidence . . .

It amazes me that anyone can even suggest "staying the course," when it's been one failure after another.

That's what I've been wondering too. He's basically saying he wants to keep on with making one disaster after another, because to stop doing so would be to admit he made a mistake. By 'he' I mean Cheney, I think, he's the brains behind it all.

[Jocko]

When they have nothing reasonable or logical to say, it's their standard fallback. Hurl insults. I just hurl them back.

And then cry like a little girl with a scraped knee when they find their way into a sig line for their charming, if impotent, effects.

Hurl away, AUP. Pretend your next post is a katyusha rocket and I'm an Israeli teen oppressing you by walking down a street somewhere just within range.

[Jocko]

For your information, I'm at work, I've got three computers printing and I use this one to be the splinter in your ass as you and Jerko slide down the bannister of life. You're on after being on all day too, what's your excuse?

Perhaps you should concentrate one one computer and spend less time imagining how you're going to get into people's asses? Those are two excellent ways to begin making sense.

[a_unique_person]

And then cry like a little girl with a scraped knee when they find their way into a sig line for their charming, if impotent, effects.

Hurl away, AUP. Pretend your next post is a katyusha rocket and I'm an Israeli teen oppressing you by walking down a street somewhere just within range.

You are just a troll, this forum only has meaning for you when you can attack someone.

[Mephisto]

And then cry like a little girl with a scraped knee when they find their way into a sig line for their charming, if impotent, effects.

That's pretty interesting considering you quote AUP in your sig line. Does that mean you're impotent?

Speaking of crying like a little girl . . .

[Mephisto]

Perhaps you should concentrate one one computer and spend less time imagining how you're going to get into people's asses? Those are two excellent ways to begin making sense.

Maybe you should concentrate on providing some sources and some evidence of your assertions that I hate Israel and the Jewish people, or are you just a run-of-the-mill conservative - all talk and no action?

As for your two excellent ways to begin making sense - you're certainly one to talk - you don't make anymore sense than a monkey flinging poo between the bars of his cage. (Apologies to TragicMonkey and mummymonkey)

[Jocko]

That's pretty interesting considering you quote AUP in your sig line. Does that mean you're impotent?

Speaking of crying like a little girl . . .

Huh? If you can't even cogently impugn a guy's masculinity, I really think it's time you took a break, buddy. If you want to take another swipe at insulting me, by all means go nuts. I can appreciate a good shot to the chops. But don't waste my time with this nonsense. ;)

Oh, and "poo" isn't really the kind of word grown-ups use. Consider investing in a thesaurus.

[Jocko]

You are just a troll, this forum only has meaning for you when you can attack someone.

Poomph, right in the desert. Come on, a_u_p, you've got about 10 minutes before the IDF zeros your position. Got time for one more shot?

[Mephisto]

Oh, and "poo" isn't really the kind of word grown-ups use. Consider investing in a thesaurus.

Well, I thought about calling you a Wrong. Refrain from this sort of comment, whether there be filters or not. but it probably wouldn't get through the filters. Anyway, you've got a limited amount of imagination - think of the worst insult you can, then imagine me applying it to you. See above..

[BPSCG]

That's a good one, YOU explaining why imposing democracy on a country can have a terrible cost is like George Bush telling the Iraqi people how lucky they are we invaded. Fine, point out my apparent hypocrisy. But answer the question I asked. Was "imposing democracy" on Germany and Japan worth the cost? Yes or no? If "yes," then what do you consider an acceptable cost-to-benefit tradeoff? And show how that yardstick demonstrates that while the tradeoff was worthwhile in the case of Japan and Germany, it is not worthwhile in the case of Iraq, nor in the case of the larger Islamic middle east.

Custer was a great hero

"In late 1875, Sioux and Cheyenne Indians defiantly left their reservations, outraged over the continued intrusions of whites into their sacred lands in the Black Hills. They gathered in Montana with the great warrior Sitting Bull to fight for their lands. The following spring, two victories over the US Cavalry emboldened them to fight on in the summer of 1876. To force the large Indian army back to the reservations, the Army dispatched three columns to attack in coordinated fashion, one of which contained Lt. Colonel George Custer and the Seventh Cavalry. Spotting the Sioux village about fifteen miles away along the Rosebud River on June 25, Custer also found a nearby group of about forty warriors. Ignoring orders to wait, he decided to attack before they could alert the main party. He did not realize that the number of warriors in the village numbered three times his strength."

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pfcuster.htm

He wasn't a great hero, he was another imperialistic buffoon waging war on the terrorists of his time.Mephisto, just because you elaborate at length on an irrelevancy doesn't make it any less irrelevant. I'm trying to find out whether killing a lot of people and destroying a lot of cities is a price worth paying if you get democracy by doing it. You're answering by trying to explain why Custer wasn't a hero.

[Mephisto]

Fine, point out my apparent hypocrisy. But answer the question I asked. Was "imposing democracy" on Germany and Japan worth the cost? Yes or no? If "yes," then what do you consider an acceptable cost-to-benefit tradeoff?

Yes, imposing democracy on Germany and Japan was worth the cost, but you're comparing apples to oranges. Japan and Germany were involved in imperialistic actions against major portions of the world, they were incarcerating millions of Jews for the purpose of genocide and responsible for the death of millions of people,

Iraq wasn't involved in a declared war on anyone, nor did they have the capabilities to attack anyone. A far cry from Japanese or German actions preceding WWII.

What made the occupation of Japan and Germany an acceptable "cost-to-benefit" tradeoff was the fact that it was a WORLD WAR and we were coaxed into the war with Japan's surprise attack.

And show how that yardstick demonstrates that while the tradeoff was worthwhile in the case of Japan and Germany, it is not worthwhile in the case of Iraq, nor in the case of the larger Islamic middle east.

That's an easy one:

First, the United States was in no danger from Iraq. They couldn't attack us because they didn't have the weapons nor an intercontinental delivery system.

Secondly, the American people were mislead by the Bush administration that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Of course, this is only the first excuse we used for our invasion. Other reasons were; WMD, to liberate the Iraqi people, to capture Saddam, to bring Saddam to trial, to wait until the Iraqi people formulated a Constitution, to wait until the Iraqi people held their first elections, to wait until the Iraqi people held their second election and so on and on and on. Eventually, after ten years of violent occupation, I imagine our excuses will be along the lines of, "to ensure that the Iraqi children have the Nickleodean TV network so Iraqi children can learn about Sponge Bob.

I'm trying to find out whether killing a lot of people and destroying a lot of cities is a price worth paying if you get democracy by doing it.

What a stupid question, but what can anyone expect from a neo-con who believes that the end deserves the means.

P.S. Maybe it's not working because we're not killing enough people?

[FreeChile]

You missed the point, from top to bottom. I wasn't saying you beat the insurgents into submission. I was saying that if the Iraq invasion had wrought death and destruction comparable to what Germany and Japan had suffered in WW II, or the Confederacy had suffered in the American Civil War, there would have been no Iraqi insurrection to begin with. When you have demonstrated that you are ready, willing, and able to utterly destroy your enemy, and his only way to keep you from doing that is to stop resisting you, he will stop resisting you rather than face destruction.
You did say “unless and until you destroy …” I simply pointed out that that was not the only way to stop an insurgency. But even with the explanation you are offering now, it is still possible for a group to choose destruction over submission or surrender: the “give me liberty or give me death” type.

People here talk about "imposing democracy," as if that's something bad, but that is exactly what we did to Germany and Japan, countries that, before WW II, were no more democratic than Iraq.

The ugly question is, is it worth the terrible cost? Would the world today be better off if the Nazis and the Japanese had extended their savagery no farther than their own borders, and not dragged the rest of the world into a war? Is having peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Germany and Japan today worth the hundreds of millions of lives it cost?
Why do you limit your comparisons to Germany and Japan? Why not Colombia, Haiti, or the Dominican Republic, or the Koreas, or Cuba, or Iran, or Vietnam? There are nearly 100 years of History available to you.

Would having a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Iraq today be worth the destruction that might be necessary to bring it about?
This is a hypothetical question. As hypothetical as asking if Saddam Hussein would have been overthrown had the United States not supported him and you would probably find more evidence suggesting that hypothesis. Another equally hypothetical question would be if Iraq would become peaceful, prosperous, and democratic if the United States ceased the invasion. Why don’t you prefer these hypotheses, instead?

Also, what evidence do you have that a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Iraq was or is the goal of the invasion? Do you accept this simply because your leaders in Washington say it? And even, if that were the goal, what gives you the confidence that the goal is attainable and that the US is competent to do it?

Would having a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Islamic middle east tomorrow be worth the millions of deaths that might be necessary to bring it about?

I'll be the first to say I don't know the answer to those questions - they're questions for better philosophers and ethicists than I. But I fear events will one day force us to answer "yes."
So you want a peaceful world tomorrow and you hope you will have it through war! So the whole thing is simply a hopeful theory for you, isn’t it, like religion where you are saved in your next life. The uncertainty you express here clearly shows it. Even Einstein, one of those “better philosophers”, cried like a little girl and regretted having advised Roosevelt to build the atom bomb.

It is interesting that in spite of your self-expressed uncertainty and fear, you cling to the myth that you will save the Middle East and the world through war. Just look at the way you, Mephisto, Jocko, and a_unique_person carry on. I wonder what all of you would do to each other if given weapons and left in a room by yourselves. Is that a reflection of the world you want to impose on others?

[BPSCG]

Would having a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Islamic middle east tomorrow be worth the millions of deaths that might be necessary to bring it about?

I'll be the first to say I don't know the answer to those questions - they're questions for better philosophers and ethicists than I. But I fear events will one day force us to answer "yes."
So you want a peaceful world tomorrow and you hope you will have it through war! Wow. It's like you're deliberately trying to misunderstand what I write, starting with your apparent attempt to make it sound like by "tomorrow," I meant "in the next 24 hours." Anyone with more than a sixth-grade education would have recognized the rhetorical device I used, where "tomorrow" means "in the future." Since you obviously have more than a sixth-grade education, I conclude you were deliberately trying to misunderstand.

And where do you get the idea that I hope for a war? I say I fear there may be one and you translate that as meaning I hope there will be one. So when someone says, "I fear I may be catching a cold," does that mean you believe he hopes he's catching one?

It is interesting that in spite of your self-expressed uncertainty and fear, you cling to the myth that you will save the Middle East and the world through war. Just look at the way you, Mephisto, Jocko, and a_unique_person carry on. I wonder what all of you would do to each other if given weapons and left in a room by yourselves. Is that a reflection of the world you want to impose on others?This is so bizarre it defies reply.

[davefoc]

You missed the point, from top to bottom. I wasn't saying you beat the insurgents into submission. I was saying that if the Iraq invasion had wrought death and destruction comparable to what Germany and Japan had sufferred in WW II, or the Confederacy had suffered in the American Civil War, there would have been no Iraqi insurrection to begin with. When you have demonstrated that you are ready, willing, and able to utterly destroy your enemy, and his only way to keep you from doing that is to stop resisting you, he will stop resisting you rather than face destruction. People here talk about "imposing democracy," as if that's something bad, but that is exactly what we did to Germany and Japan, countries that, before WW II, were no more democratic than Iraq.

The ugly question is, is it worth the terrible cost? Would the world today be better off if the Nazis and the Japanese had extended their savagery no farther than their own borders, and not dragged the rest of the world into a war? Is having peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Germany and Japan today worth the hundreds of millions of lives it cost?

Would having a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Iraq today be worth the destruction that might be necessary to bring it about?

Would having a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Islamic middle east tomorrow be worth the millions of deaths that might be necessary to bring it about?

I'll be the first to say I don't know the answer to those questions - they're questions for better philosophers and ethicists than I. But I fear events will one day force us to to answer "yes."

It seems to me in the above you have done a pretty good job of putting forth the major uncertainties involved with intervention or no intervention in the middle east by the west. Another way of saying it might be, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

My guess, is that the middle east has been made more dangerous by western intervention. Further, my guess is that the post colonial intervention by the US has also tended to make things less rather than more safe. ETA: so I am thinking a little more damned if we do then if we don't.

As to the idea that the US could impose democracy on the middle east if it inflicted sufficient damage. I am not sure of that without hypothesizing overwhelming casualties. One advantage that US had with Germany and Japan was that these were natural countries. Right now the US is trying to make Iraq work as a country when it seems to have much less of a sense of national unity than Japan or Germany.

Another issue is that the attempt to stabilize Iraq is being run by Bushco. Bushco, has been almost unrelentingly partisan, corrupt and/or incompetent. No matter what level of destruction that you choose to hypothesize is there any reason to think that Bushco could run a successful reconstruction and stabilization project? I don't think so.

ETA: I think, that at least some of the post colonial US mucking about in the middle east was justified by the cold war. Now, I think the justification for US mucking about is much less clear, but roughly it would be: 1. our own safety 2. safety of our allies 3. benefit of the middle east population. The problem is that so far, in net, post cold war US mucking about has worked against every one of those goals.

[Patricio Elicer]

Well, I thought about calling you a [deleted - Patricio] or possibily a [deleted - Patricio], but it probably wouldn't get through the filters. Anyway, you've got a limited amount of imagination - think of the worst insult you can, then imagine me applying it to you. ****-for-brains.Mephisto, please stop, or you'll risk further sanctions

[Darth Rotor]

That is exactly what worries me. People no longer fear war.
Which people?

Weren't you paying attention to the anti war rallies before the War in Afghanistan, and the much larger ones (both in US and elsewhere) before the Iraq war?

Without using platitudes and strawmen, is there a point you were trying to get across that does not include bludgeoning the obvious fact that people die in war?

A couple of aphorisms for you from an expert on war, Robert E Lee:

"It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it." (I have seen "otherwise" added at the end of that in some citations.)

"What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world."

ETA: I think, that at least some of the post colonial US mucking about in the middle east was justified by the cold war. Now, I think the justification for US mucking about is much less clear, but roughly it would be: 1. our own safety 2. safety of our allies 3. benefit of the middle east population. The problem is that so far, in net, post cold war US mucking about has worked against every one of those goals.
Dave, some good points, but I will point out that the US is one of many actors mucking about in the Mid East, and a prime reason it and others do so is the current industrial world's/global economy's unceasing demand for energy, specifically oil.

Absent that, they most likely be left with their quaint little religion and we'd be trading for fresh water pearls from the Persian Gulf like we'd trade for Hummel figurines from Germany.

DR

[Pardalis]

Mephisto, what war crimes would Bush Jr. be accused of, according to you? Specifically?

[BPSCG]

A few more, from someone who knew a little about war:


You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing!
You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.
If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.
Its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families ... It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation.
The scenes on this field would cure anyone of war.
The legitimate object of war is a more perfect peace.
War is, at its best, barbarism.
I regard the death and mangling of a couple thousand men as a small affair, a kind of morning dash — and it may be well that we become so hardened.
I think I understand what military fame is: to be killed on the field of battle and have your name misspelled in the newspapers.
Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and defeat.
There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell.William Tecumseh Sherman.

[Pardalis]

Secondly, the American people were mislead by the Bush administration that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

????? When did they ever say that?

[Darth Rotor]

Mephisto, what war crimes would Bush Jr. be accused of, according to you? Specifically?
I think armed aggression under the definitions of the UN charter would be one of them. Trouble is, the PM's of about 30 countries would be charged with him. I don't see that happening, politically.

Another would be charges of illegally handling a variety of prisoners taken on the field of battle in Afghanistan. Not as cut and dried as some would suggest, and probably winnable (by Bush team) in any objective court with even modestly talented attorney's. Part of the defense the Bush team has is their pursuit and punishment of people who incorrectly treated some prisoners in custody, both in Iraq and elsewhere. The Abu Grahib photos were released by a defendent being charged by a DoD investigation, begun in the fall of 2003, into mishandling of prisoners. Remember?

The internal battles over correct procedures and Gitmo are still, due to the partisan and non conventional nature of some of the captives complicated by the fears, in other cases, of persons being released only to be executed by their home nation.

DR

[FreeChile]

Wow. It's like you're deliberately trying to misunderstand what I write, starting with your apparent attempt to make it sound like by "tomorrow," I meant "in the next 24 hours." Anyone with more than a sixth-grade education would have recognized the rhetorical device I used, where "tomorrow" means "in the future." Since you obviously have more than a sixth-grade education, I conclude you were deliberately trying to misunderstand.
By “tomorrow,” I also mean in the future. How do you perceive me to mean “in the next 24 hours”?

In any case, consider my comments to address your open question. Why do you ask that question and not the other questions I suggested or address the actual topic of this thread about Bush possibly being a war criminal? If you had a President who were a war criminal wouldn’t that be a more urgent democratic concern to attend to than the situation in the Middle East?

WHY DO YOU DERAIL THIS THREAD AND TAKE FOCUS AWAY FROM THAT QUESTION?

And where do you get the idea that I hope for a war? I say I fear there may be one and you translate that as meaning I hope there will be one. So when someone says, "I fear I may be catching a cold," does that mean you believe he hopes he's catching one?
No. I look at what that person is saying or how the person is acting and try to see if that fear is legitimate. Your logic and questions suggest that the fear may be operating. At this point I would ask you why do you have this fear?

I am assuming you have a desire to get rid of the fear you mention above and that desire is being expressed in the form of false hope with the hypothetical question you are asking. This thread was about the President being a possible war criminal and not about your hypothetical situation. Obviously, you want to make it about that.

I got the idea that you support the present invasion and that you were defending it regardless and were indeed proposing more forceful and violent action. Also, that your self-expressed fear was somehow clouding your judgment and allowing you to be manipulated by your President.

This is so bizarre it defies reply.
It is related to what I just said.

[FreeChile]

The professor’s argument is pretty weak.
Well then, let’s see if your response is any better.

It all falls down here: "the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the war."

Well that some atrocities might happen is predictable.
This means you agree with the professor.

But not specifically those.
The article does not really say specifically those. You have yourself interpreted it that way. That is not what I got from the article. I understood those to be examples of atrocities. In fact, the quote appropriately presents the examples parenthetically using dashes.

This being true, one would have to try anyone who ever starts or maybe even responds to a military engagement. This means outlawing war which is never going to happen and wouldn't work anyway since people would rather go to prison than not fight for what they believe in.
You are wrong again. If you get the approval of the international community (in this case the UN) by justifying your aggression, you can do all the warring you want. But it would be very difficult to pass because even then, there would be specific cases where military action is permitted—it excludes the use of military force to remove an invented or imagined threat.

[FreeChile]

Man, I have a few contract/agreements I wish I could remove my signature from when they became inconvenient
Read the article. It says how Bush has been getting out of those aggreements. I like the part where he can actually invade the ICC detaining country if Americans were detained overseas like the Nazis. He has also outlawed support for the ICC, according to the article. Why would he want to do all that?

[BPSCG]

No. I look at what that person is saying or how the person is acting and try to see if that fear is legitimate. Your logic and questions suggest that the fear may be operating. At this point I would ask you why do you have this fear?

I am assuming you have a desire to get rid of the fear you mention above and that desire is being expressed in the form of false hope with the hypothetical question you are asking. This thread was about the President being a possible war criminal and not about your hypothetical situation. Obviously, you want to make it about that.

I got the idea that you support the present invasion and that you were defending it regardless and were indeed proposing more forceful and violent action. Also, that your self-expressed fear was somehow clouding your judgment and allowing you to be manipulated by your President.Well, I guess I'll have to defer to you, since you apparently know my thought processes better than I do. I didn't realize I was hoping we could have a large-scale war with the Muslim world. Thanks for setting me straight. :boggled:

[FreeChile]

I was not talking about the wider Middle East. I was talking about Iraq.

Now back to the open question, why are you afraid?

[a_unique_person]

????? When did they ever say that?

It was masterful piece of association. The majority of troops in Iraq think that's why they are there, according to one survery.

[BPSCG]

I was not talking about the wider Middle East. I was talking about Iraq.

Now back to the open question, why are you afraid?Let's get straight what it is that I'm afraid of, first.

I am afraid that Islamism, not confronted and stopped today, will interpret the west's unwillingness to confront as weakness. That they (the Islamists) will then commit some new, frightful atrocity on the order of September 11, or worse - much worse (think nuclear) and that the result will be a terrible shooting war not against Islamism, but against Islam in general and the Muslim middle east in particular. Not a "war on terror," but a war on Islam. Not a war to defend ourselves, but a war to destroy a fifth of the world's population and lay waste to entire cities and countries.

That is what I fear lies down the road. The kind of war that William Tecumseh Sherman described almost 150 years ago fought with weapons Sherman could never have conceived of.

Now, if you want to believe I prefer that to living in a world where Muslim countries become peaceful and democratic without first being crushed, then you need to have a talk with your doctor, because there are medications for that kind of delusion.

[a_unique_person]

Let's get straight what it is that I'm afraid of, first.

I am afraid that Islamism, not confronted and stopped today, will interpret the west's unwillingness to confront as weakness. That they (the Islamists) will then commit some new, frightful atrocity on the order of September 11, or worse - much worse (think nuclear) and that the result will be a terrible shooting war not against Islamism, but against Islam in general and the Muslim middle east in particular. Not a "war on terror," but a war on Islam. Not a war to defend ourselves, but a war to destroy a fifth of the world's population and lay waste to entire cities and countries.

That is what I fear lies down the road. The kind of war that William Tecumseh Sherman described almost 150 years ago fought with weapons Sherman could never have conceived of.

Now, if you want to believe I prefer that to living in a world where Muslim countries become peaceful and democratic without first being crushed, then you need to have a talk with your doctor, because there are medications for that kind of delusion.

"confronting" it is just what the extremists want, it will split the world in the best act of wedge politics ever seen. It will lead to more war. The battle is for the 'hearts and minds' of those who are not exremists.

[BPSCG]

"confronting" it is just what the extremists want, it will split the world in the best act of wedge politics ever seen. It will lead to more war. The battle is for the 'hearts and minds' of those who are not exremists.Hate to go Godwin on you, but what you just wrote would have fit in perfectly in any appeaser's speech in 1938, as noted in the other thread about Rumsfeld's recent speech.

[FreeChile]

Let's get straight what it is that I'm afraid of, first.
Yes. Let’s see if your fear is well founded.

I am afraid that Islamism, not confronted and stopped today, will interpret the west's unwillingness to confront as weakness.
So you prefer confrontation and violence now hoping for peace tomorrow. That is the hope I was talking about, isn’t it? And that hope is rooted in fear. Here’s a simple question. How many Islamists do you suggest we fight in order for you to no longer be afraid? You may also want to account for any Islamists that may be created as a result of our efforts to confront and stop them or anyone who becomes sympathetic towards them as a result.

Islamism is a very general word. It is akin to saying Jews or Christians; these groups are very diverse. Who do you mean by Islamism and what is it that they are doing now that must be confronted and stopped today? Finally, how is all this related to you, BPSCG? After all, BPSCG is the one who is afraid.

That they (the Islamists) will then commit some new, frightful atrocity on the order of September 11, or worse - much worse (think nuclear) and that the result will be a terrible shooting war not against Islamism, but against Islam in general and the Muslim middle east in particular.
I still don’t understand what you mean by Islamism, Islam, and terrorism. It is not clear what you are fighting and how that relates to your fears of mushroom clouds.

Not a "war on terror," but a war on Islam.
From what you’ve said above, the present war is not really a war on terror. It is a war on Islamism. Remember, you are trying to confront and stop Islamism today. Also, what is more and what is less likely to bring about a war on Islam, a war on Islamism, a war on terror,

Not a war to defend ourselves, but a war to destroy a fifth of the world's population and lay waste to entire cities and countries.

That is what I fear lies down the road. The kind of war that William Tecumseh Sherman described almost 150 years ago fought with weapons Sherman could never have conceived of.
Again, how is this related to you, personally, BPSCG? The Crusades also happened hundreds of years ago, and BPSCG and America is here now. Why are you concerned about a peaceful world 100 years from now? Not only will you not be there to see it, but also the future is pretty much guaranteed not to happen the way we envision it today. Ask GW; he could probably tell you a lot about that.

Now, if you want to believe I prefer that to living in a world where Muslim countries become peaceful and democratic without first being crushed, then you need to have a talk with your doctor, because there are medications for that kind of delusion.
It is not clear what you mean by this last part. I understand you are hoping for a peaceful Muslim world. But what do you mean by “first being crushed.”

[Pardalis]

Hey Mephistopheles, how about answering this lie you just wrote:

Secondly, the American people were mislead by the Bush administration that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

When did the Bush administration ever said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11?

Please provide exact quote and source.

[FreeChile]

Hey Mephistopheles, how about answering this lie you just wrote:

When did the Bush administration ever said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11?

Please provide exact quote and source.
It is possible to mislead people without lying to them--especially if people are afraid and gullible. Look at any of the skeptic sites on the techniques of the psychics to learn more about that. It is also possible to mislead or misguide oneself and those who follow you. Many cults exist showing that this is so.

[Pardalis]

It is possible to mislead people without lying to them--especially if people are afraid and gullible. Look at any of the skeptic sites on the techniques of the psychics to learn more about that. It is also possible to mislead or misguide oneself and those who follow you. Many cults exist showing that this is so.

BS

Show me how they have mislead the American people into believing Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

[Darth Rotor]

It is possible to mislead people without lying to them--especially if people are afraid and gullible. Look at any of the skeptic sites on the techniques of the psychics to learn more about that. It is also possible to mislead or misguide oneself and those who follow you. Many cults exist showing that this is so.
The frequent presentation of the song "Have you Forgotten" on certain media outlets in the run up to the Iraq war was a deliberate attempt, IMO, to juxtapose WTC on the Iraq War puclicity campaign. The excuse given in a recent discussion of VP Cheney's consistent position was "if there is a 1 in a 100 chance he's )Saddam) got some WMD to hand off to a trouble maker, we can't wait until he does so, we have to do something about it ahead of time." Forget where I saw that, but it was less than a month ago.

Consider that Saddam Hussein was behind a failed car bomb assassination of GHW Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm).

If he would try that, in 1993, before the sanctions really squoze his nuts financially, what wouldn't he try? Good idea or bad, Saddam sure gave the impression to a lot of people that there wasn't much he wouldn't do.

DR

[Ziggurat]

It is possible to mislead people without lying to them--especially if people are afraid and gullible.

Where did you even get the idea that anyone thought Saddam was behind 9/11 because of anything Bush said or did? Isn't that really just an assumption on your part? What we DO know, however, is that the day after 9/11, a very large majority (over 70%, IIRC) of Americans thought it likely that Saddam was involved in 9/11, before the administration had made any claims about responsibility at all. People came to their own conclusions. That number has gone down consistently over time, including during the leadup to the Iraq war.

[BPSCG]

Islamism is a very general word. It is akin to saying Jews or Christians; No it is not. I've explained this a number of times before, in language I thought was clear enough, but evidently it either was not, or people simply choose to disregard the distinction. Here, I'm going to make it as easy as I possibly can, and if people still act like they think I mean one when I mean the other, it's either because of simple pigheadedness or rank stupidity. Analogies:
When I say "Islam," that's the equivalent of "Christianity," i.e., the faith as a whole, not as a part. All Shiites are Muslims, but not all Muslims are Shiites. All Presbyterians are Christians, but not all Christians are Presbyterians.
"Muslim" corresponds to "Christian," i.e., any follower of the faith, without regard to denomination or sect. When I say, "He's a Christian," you don't know if he's a Southern Baptist or an Episcopalian. And when I say someone is a Muslim, I am not saying whether he is a Sunni or a Shiite.
"Islamism" corresponds to "violent fundamentalist Christianity," i.e. a violent subset of the larger faith, based on a rigid reading of the faith's primary scriptures.
"Islamist" corresponds to "violent fundamentalist Christian," i.e., someone who subscribes to the teachings of that violent subset of the larger faith.You can quibble with me on some of the details (yeah, I know about how the Islamists want sha'aria law imposed under the new caliphate), but those are essentially the distinctions I use when I write.

Note I don't show any Muslim equivalent of "fundamentalist Christian." That's because AFAIK, there is no such thing as a non-violent fundamentalist Muslim (strict adherence to Muhammad's teachings requires killing people for a lot of things, while Jesus never required anyone to kill anyone for any reason), but there are non-violent fundamentalist Christians, the Jehovah's Witnesses who come knocking at your door being one example.

So, no, Islamism is not "a very general word." It's quite a specific word, directly related to "Islamist," which has become the one-word description of choice for a violent fundamentalist Muslim. Just as when I say "Christians," you don't think I mean "Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church," or vice versa, when I say "Muslims," you shouldn't think I mean "Islamists," or vice versa. I try to be very careful which terms I use, because distinctions matter. All Islamists want me dead; not all Muslims do.

Why are you concerned about a peaceful world 100 years from now? Congratulations on winning the Stupid Question of the Day Award. The day isn't over yet, but I'm quite confident no one is going to challenge that one.

[a_unique_person]

Hate to go Godwin on you, but what you just wrote would have fit in perfectly in any appeaser's speech in 1938, as noted in the other thread about Rumsfeld's recent speech.

This is not 1938, for a start. Islam is not Germany. Islamism is not Nazism. The weapons are not tanks and propellor aircraft.

[Rob Lister]

This is not 1938, for a start. Islam is not Germany. Islamism is not Nazism. The weapons are not tanks and propellor aircraft.

And yet the analogy seems to hold perfectly. Perhaps you should look up the definition.

[a_unique_person]

And yet the analogy seems to hold perfectly. Perhaps you should look up the definition.

It is nothing like the present. The analogy is used constantly, yet it doesn't fit at all. Al Qaeda does not function like Nazi Germany at all. Hitler had armies marching past him, in the centre of an advanced industrial country, Osama is holed up in a cave in the mountains.

[Darth Rotor]

And yet the analogy seems to hold perfectly. Perhaps you should look up the definition.
Hi

It is 2006. War, and the politics it springs from, is bit different now in method, though not in aim, which is the same as it ever was:

get what you want from someone else,
however you can,
by hook or by crook.

DR

[Pardalis]

Mephisto, for the third time, will you answer for this lie you wrote?:

Secondly, the American people were mislead by the Bush administration that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

When did the Bush administration ever say or imply that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11?

[Katana]

This was from an interview that Brian Williams did with Bush a couple of days ago. Brian asks him about whether the war in Iraq was wrong, and his first repsonse brings up 9/11. He said that the war, the Iraq war, came to our shores, that our policy of hoping for calm led to the 9/11 attack. He certainly seems to be connecting the two with that statement.

Then Brian quickly reminded him that those weren't Iraqis, and Bush was clearly caught off guard (at least it seemed to me). He stammered a bit and said what you can read below where he quickly back-tracked. The flow of the transcription doesn't do justice to the nature of his tone. Then again, I am hardly an unbiased interpreter of body language when it comes to Bush.

WILLIAMS: When you take a tour of the world, a lot of Americans e-mail me with their fears that, some days they just wake up and it just feels like the end of the world is near. And you go from North Korea to Iran, to Iraq, to Afghanistan, and you look at how things have changed, how Americans are viewed overseas, if that is important to you. Do you have any moments of doubt that we fought a wrong war? Or that there's something wrong with the perception of America overseas?

BUSH: Well those are two different questions, did we fight the wrong war, and absolutely -- I have no doubt -- the war came to our shores, remember that. We had a foreign policy that basically said, let's hope calm works. And we were attacked.

WILLIAMS: But those weren't Iraqis.

BUSH : They weren’t, no, I agree, they weren't Iraqis, nor did I ever say Iraq ordered that attack, but they're a part of, Iraq is part of the struggle against the terrorists. Now in terms of image, of course I worry about American image. We are great at TV, and yet we are getting crushed on the PR front. I personally do not believe that Saddam Hussein picked up the phone and said, “al-Qaida, attack America.”

His first inclination did seem to be to use 9/11 to justify the war, but that is, admittedly, just my humble opinion.

[Pardalis]

Sure, they used 9/11 to justify attacking Iraq, no doubt about it. They believe it is a part of the war on terror. But as far as I know, they never said Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

[Katana]

Sure, they used 9/11 to justify attacking Iraq, no doubt about it. They believe it is a part of the war on terror. But as far as I know, they never said Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
I haven't heard them do that either, but I do think that he continues to reinforce a connection. Some people will inevitably translate that into cause and effect (or at least I suspect that he hopes that they do). Fortunately, I think at this point, they are in the minority.

This was an interesting article from 2003 about this tactic. The reason why I chose something that old? I thought that this was an interestingly prophetic statement:
In the end, will it matter if some Americans have meshed together Sept. 11 and Iraq? If the US and its allies go to war against Iraq, and it goes well, then the Bush administration is likely not to face questions about the way it sold the war. But if war and its aftermath go badly, then the administration could be under fire.
The Impact of Bush Linking 9/11 and Iraq (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html)

[Mephisto]

Sure, they used 9/11 to justify attacking Iraq, no doubt about it. They believe it is a part of the war on terror. But as far as I know, they never said Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3783

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/aug/28/cheney_again_links_iraq_and_9_11

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21288

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/01/bushs_terror_tales.php

[Darth Rotor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3783

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/aug/28/cheney_again_links_iraq_and_9_11

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21288

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/01/bushs_terror_tales.php
Let's see: one link to a credible source, four links to blowhards.

Ever hear of the Mendoza Line?

DR

[Pardalis]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3783

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/aug/28/cheney_again_links_iraq_and_9_11

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21288

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/01/bushs_terror_tales.php

Do you have anything tangible? I see nothing here that says that the Bush administration said Iraq was behind 9/11.

Your only un-biased source says:

Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington

ETA: Thanks anyway for answering my question.