George Bush is a war criminal

[davidmc]

Davidmc and I have virtually never agreed on anything (and I would guess he agrees with Wurm on many things - though I would never want to put words in his mouth), yet he handles himself in a way in which I enjoy exchanging with him...and he seems VERY passionate about his beliefs. I respect his opinions, and although he hates mine, I think he seems to respect mine as well. It's cool to be passionate. We need passionate people. It's not cool to assume anyone who disagrees is not worthy of the respect of a mature conversation.

I don't consider myself a "fence sitter" just because I'm not extreme one way or the other. I have firm conviction in my beliefs. Just because a leader at any given time doesn't fit into all my firmly held convictions does not make me a fence sitter. It makes me a very normal part of our population.

Thank you for your accolades. I too, beleive that although this is the soap-box, name calling &/or personal attacks does not serve a useful purpose. I agree w/ you on your point that the majority of the American population being in the "moderate" category. Thats what I understand, anyway. I, as I have stated before, was for intervention in Iraq, only in a well thought out concerted effort. If the UN didn't want to participate, AFTER ALL ENTREATIES WERE EXHAUSTED (which they weren't), I would've held them accountable as Bush seems to have done (eg.-no contracts). Iraq was a destabilizing influence in the area, not to mention Saddam's financial rewards for suicide bombers in Israel. My beef is w/ the "sexed up" Intel which, it would appear, was grossly inaccurate or a falsehood (nice way of saying-a lie) I am convinced Bush Jr. invaded for the primary reasons of avenging Saddam's supposed attempt on Bush Sr's. life & unfettered access to the N. Oil fields in Kurdish controlled territory. As others have stated, there is a time/need to be actively questioning & holding accountable misdeeds by Gov't officials-Bush Jr.

 

[darkboong]

And the normal part of our population sees no point one way or the other in waving around pictures of Bush's image morphed into that of a monkey. THAT is wasted passion.

I have to agree with that.

As tempting as it is to indulge in taking the **** out of Bush & Blair, ultimately it is the policy that has to change, not the personalities. The personality debate would be useful if either of the buggers are facing a trial for warcrimes, but that's unlikely. I also suspect that the policy of the US and UK would have gone a similar way if Kerry & Howard were in charge (they said as much).

 

[darkboong]

Iraq was a destabilizing influence in the area

That directly contradicts the (un-sexy) briefing that Dearlove (head of MI6) gave.

, not to mention Saddam's financial rewards for suicide bombers in Israel.

Assuming that is true (hard to tell given the heavy bias evident in the sources I've seen for it), that was very small beer by comparison to the money and weaponry that Israel got for free. How do you feel about fact that the money and the kit given to Israel is used to kill innocent Palestinians (including several children sat at their desks in school rooms) and destroy their homes ?

 

[roadhog]

I have to agree with that.

As tempting as it is to indulge in taking the **** out of Bush & Blair, ultimately it is the policy that has to change, not the personalities. The personality debate would be useful if either of the buggers are facing a trial for warcrimes, but that's unlikely. I also suspect that the policy of the US and UK would have gone a similar way if Kerry & Howard were in charge (they said as much).

Very good point. I agree.

 

[davidmc]

That directly contradicts the (un-sexy) briefing that Dearlove (head of MI6) gave.



Assuming that is true (hard to tell given the heavy bias evident in the sources I've seen for it), that was very small beer by comparison to the money and weaponry that Israel got for free. How do you feel about fact that the money and the kit given to Israel is used to kill innocent Palestinians (including several children sat at their desks in school rooms) and destroy their homes ?

I am unaware of the MI6 briefing but this should come as no suprise because I am over on this side of the pond & we have our own Intel. apparatus which should be on the same page, so to speak, as yours. Jordan or some such other "large-ish" middle eastern country should cede some land to the displaced Palestinians & stop their belly-aching. You don't think Israel is a large state, by any measure, do you

 

[davidmc]

not looking very good.

 

[Wurm]

So roadhog, exactly where is it you stand on the various issues raised here?

BTW - don't think you're the only one with military experience here, (or whatever it was you were overseas for). I was Army Intel in the late '70s-early '80s, and was assigned to 1st Cav. Div./312th M.I. Bn./191st M.I. Co as an analyst. After that gig, I was promoted early and moved up to III Corps as a M.I. analyst, and other intel duties beyond that. I have 2 Letters of Commendation, among other accolades, and was picked for several volunteer assignments.

Now that the pissing match is over, let's see what you've got for foreign policy suggestions, hmm?

 

[FredC]

I am unaware of the MI6 briefing but this should come as no suprise because I am over on this side of the pond & we have our own Intel. apparatus which should be on the same page, so to speak, as yours. Jordan or some such other "large-ish" middle eastern country should cede some land to the displaced Palestinians & stop their belly-aching. You don't think Israel is a large state, by any measure, do you

That's not the point, and it's a ridicolous suggestion.

 

[wilmar13]

I was picked for several volunteer assignments.

You were 'picked' for a volunteer assignment? Wow the military sure must screw with you guy's heads.

 

[Wurm]

You were 'picked' for a volunteer assignment? Wow the military sure must screw with you guy's heads.

Maybe I phrased it wrong - "picked" as in "recommended for", but the decision to participate was still my own.

 

[Carrera]

"And I would suggest just one more thing.History shows that all superpowers ultimately perish.Not wishing to see ill to you or your country but superpower and arrogance,in the human condition, appear to go hand in hand."

That's why I so often compare Imperial Naval Athens with the modern day U.S., especially with regard to the invasion of Sicily that lost Athens its alliances.
When you think about it the U.S. only has less than a century of being in this situation of global superiority and much of that is a result of the cold war struggle and build-up of arms between two bloks.
But the Roman Empire emerged around 200 B.C. as a superpower and didn't fall till well into 300 A.D. So, the U.S. could logically remain as a superpower for another 2 or 3 hundred years with good leadership and foreign policy.
However, under poor leadership the U.S. could simply fade in importance so it really boils down to the leadership of the country and how this unrolls in the future.
I suppose you could argue that if the Romans survived Caligula maybe the U.S. will get over Bush.

Not wishing to be facetious - but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The fact is that there is now a wide feeling of scepticism about your country and it's foreign policy, after Iraq.
Most of us fundamentally have a problem with a goverment who lies to us and lies throughout, in respect of Iraq.

I think most reasonable people would welcome US involvement in a lot of regions.
No one assumes that each and every gesture to help is controlled by some sub agenda.
I have been fortunate enough to meet a lot of your country's people in diverse locations doing good work.

Your country is a superpower and that position brings responsibility.
Probably a lot more responsibility than would apply to lesser countries and therefore the level of propriety required in reaching life and death decisions
should be higher.
Unfortunately, it appears that the level of propriety required about Iraq fell well well short.

And I would suggest just one more thing.
History shows that all superpowers ultimately perish.
Not wishing to see ill to you or your country but superpower and arrogance,
in the human condition, appear to go hand in hand.

 

[FredC]

Maybe I phrased it wrong - "picked" as in "recommended for", but the decision to participate was still my own.

What flag is your atavar about? It doesn't look like Vlanderen one to me.

 

[Wurm]

What flag is your atavar about? It doesn't look like Vlanderen one to me.

Just a typical "Lion of Flanders" flag. I like the one-day Classics/P-R type races, CX, etc.

 

[FredC]

Just a typical "Lion of Flanders" flag. I like the one-day Classics/P-R type races, CX, etc.

No. Not having it. The Lions all wrong. Check it out.

 

[roadhog]

So roadhog, exactly where is it you stand on the various issues raised here?

BTW - don't think you're the only one with military experience here, (or whatever it was you were overseas for). I was Army Intel in the late '70s-early '80s, and was assigned to 1st Cav. Div./312th M.I. Bn./191st M.I. Co as an analyst. After that gig, I was promoted early and moved up to III Corps as a M.I. analyst, and other intel duties beyond that. I have 2 Letters of Commendation, among other accolades, and was picked for several volunteer assignments.

Now that the pissing match is over, let's see what you've got for foreign policy suggestions, hmm?

I know there are others here with military experience. I don't think it gives me a "leg up" on anything in particular. Just seemed relevant to the comments about the torture cases is all.

Ok, let me apologize that we somehow got off on the wrong foot. This whole environment of the internet forum is conducive to atypical behavior as we all hide behind our little screen names, etc. I'm as guilty as anyone else. I'm sure you're probably a good guy in real life.

You must know it is extremely difficult to answer a question like "what do you think of these issues?" We've touched on about 1000 issues on this thread. Same with the suggestions about foreign policy. That's a wide and varied topic.

But, just to satisfy you that I'm not avoiding any discussion here, I'll comment a little on my thoughts on the Bush admin. / Iraq, etc. I assume you followed the link to my previous post about Iraq already so I won't repeat those things. I think it's very unfortunate we ended up in Iraq for reasons that later changed. The whole WMD intelligence thing is frustrating beyond words. However, unless a whole lot more stuff is revealed, I don't think I will ever be privy to the necessary information to personally make a judgment as to who's fault it was, just how it all came about being wrong, etc. But whatever the reason, it was obviously a mistake to go into Iraq using WMD as the pretences, given the fact that the WMD intelligence was wrong. A lot of this is hindsight of course. I do believe (and you might disagree) that Bush and other key people up there honestly expected to find WMDs. It didn't happen.

So, what next.. Well, since we were already in Iraq at this point in a messy situation, I have seen nothing wrong in our administration's handling of the situation as it stood at that point. Leaving immediately upon learning of our WMD mistake would obviously be the wrong thing to do, and I think we probably agree. We now owe it to the good people of Iraq to fix the situation, I think we are doing the best we can - costly as it is. Here is what pisses me off - our administration's inability to own up to the mistake, call a spade a spade, and move on from there. I think they would receive a lot more understanding if they did so. Certainly from me. Also, all these other reasons that have been stated were still goals all along. We went in there with more than one purpose obviously. WMD was just the trigger point for the decision.

Here's the thing. Mistakes are going to happen. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people should not be held accountable. They absolutely should. Policies should change as a result of mistakes. Personnel changes should happen ASAP. The stakes in mistakes like the WMD thing are huge, and a reflective amount of responsibility should be assumed in preparing for those decisions, and in "fixing" things if they go wrong. And perhaps most importantly...don't insult the intelligence of average citizen who is going to see right through the story of "well, the real reason we went to Iraq was (fill in reason here)". I don't call for lynching mobs, etc, like some people do over this because I don't think the behavior that angers me has changed any action we have taken as a nation. I would prefer they stand up and say "we were dead wrong about WMD apparently, but since we were, we have to remedy the situation and thus our new goal is (fill in goal here)". That would be acceptable to me, but I think the exact same actions would have been taken either way.

Also, it's hard to deny that the Iraqi leaderships behavior in the preceding 10 or 15 years over weapons inspections etc was extremely suspect and did little to dispel the notion that they had something.

And here is another reason why I don't get as angry as some. To be fair, we have all created this atmosphere where Bush (or whoever happens to be in charge of something) is not able to admit any sort of mistake within his administration. If he did so over the WMD thing, certain people would be calling for impeachment immediately. If he refuses to admit it, then we all get annoyed and certain people call for impeachment, etc. It is a no win situation. That is unfortunate, because I think an administration should be able to admit something went bad, and still be left in power. Every administration has made mistakes, some of larger consequence than others of course. In terms of specific personnel, I have harsher statements about rumsfeld than anyone else, although his job is incredibly complex and difficult in these times.

Another thought... I believe that we would be in Iraq in a very similar circumstance today even if Kerry had been president during Bush'd first term. Sure, some little aspects of it might be different, but by and large we would have the same situation and the same problems. Once we crossed the border, the future as we know it know was inevitable, and I think we've handled it the best we can since then. I think Kerry would have sent us across the border as well.

Another thought.. It's tough, if not impossible, to compare Bush's performance with virtually any other president in our history. He is the only to have served post-9-11, and the changes that occured as a result of that are beyond calculation. It's an entirely different ball game.

And what of all the other countries who were in favor of going into Iraq? Sure the argument could be that we "tricked" them with faulty intelligence. Well, why don't they rely on their own damn intelligence? And if they're not going to, then at least accept responsibility for leaning so heavily on the intelligence of someone else. If they were tricked by the US intelligence, then who is to say that our administration wasn't tricked by the US intelligence community? I don't think anyone on this forum knows exactly how it all went down. Most likely it was an incredibly unfortunate alignment of groupthink, bad information, worse communication, etc. Policies should change.

As for domestic issues, I am not convinced that ANY president is not full of anything but rhetoric on any of that stuff. Sure, things go differently depending on what administration is in office, but I think mostly a factor of party politics in congress than anything else. I think the pres matters little.

I'm ready for the onslaught, as I think just about every poster in this thread will disagree with much of this.

 

[davidmc]

That's not the point, and it's a ridicolous suggestion.

Hows'about the Palestinians get land east of whatever the name of that holy city in Israel is & the Jews get everything westward, to the sea Why carve up the little statelet of Israel in the 1st place I'm just a bike rider for cryin out loud . I havn't been to the Kennedy School of Gov't yet, although I am an IR Major .

 

[davidmc]

And what of all the other countries who were in favor of going into Iraq? Sure the argument could be that we "tricked" them with faulty intelligence. Well, why don't they rely on their own damn intelligence? And if they're not going to, then at least accept responsibility for leaning so heavily on the intelligence of someone else. If they were tricked by the US intelligence, then who is to say that our administration wasn't tricked by the US intelligence community? I don't think anyone on this forum knows exactly how it all went down. Most likely it was an incredibly unfortunate alignment of groupthink, bad information, worse communication, etc. Policies should change.

They weren't "tricked" by faulty intelligence. Bush wanted the goods, any goods on Iraq. The veracity, of said intelligence was irrelevant. Bush began at the end (invasion) & worked backward w/ "sexed up" (cooked) intel. to justify his foregone conclusion. In many countries this is illegal

 

[Carrera]

I think this time Bush has really been playing with fire. His remarks made in Latvia concerning the Russian attack on Berlin will infuriate Russians - those who live as ethnic minorities and those in Russia itself.
Bush suggested that when the Russians took Berlin, they occupied East Germany and the Baltic States and imposed non-democratic rule. This may well be true but Bush didn't point out that Latvia sympathised with ****** in the Second World war and many Jews went on to the death camps through SS agencies within Latvia and Riga.
Bush has hinted about the way Berlin was treated by invading Soviet troops but forgets that ****** killed millions of Russians and Jews in a very brutal campaign. I think Bush's words will cause huge offence on this occasion. Of course, his speeches are written for him but perhaps his visit to Moscow will go down like a lead baloon.

 

[davidmc]

Of course, his speeches are written for him but perhaps his visit to Moscow will go down like a lead baloon.

This is true & Rove gives him political advice. The final decision, as to the final content of the speech though, is his.

 

[Wurm]

...The whole WMD intelligence thing is frustrating beyond words. However, unless a whole lot more stuff is revealed, I don't think I will ever be privy to the necessary information to personally make a judgment as to who's fault it was, just how it all came about being wrong, etc....Mistakes are going to happen. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people should not be held accountable. They absolutely should. Policies should change as a result of mistakes.

roadhog -

You are far too forgiving and/or willing to continue to extend the benefit of the doubt to the neo's. Frankly, I find your position to be at the very least disingenuous.

dis-in-gen-u-ous adj.

1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who... exemplified... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem. Unaware or uninformed; naive.

On the first point, the British public now seems to have all the info they need to know that PM Blair has lied to them viv-a-vis Iraq. That same modus operandi can be tied directly to the U.S. as well. There is no excuse or basis at all for this being the "fault" of the intel community ostensibly presenting accurate assessments to an "easily-duped" White House and 10 Downing St. If you believe that line of pablum, then at best you are engaging in wishful thinking to the extreme.

This war and the "reasons" for it were manufactured from well before 9/11 occured. It's just that simple, and it is more than enough grounds to begin impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives. But that will obviously not happen as long as the neo-con's have their grip on Congress as they do today.

If you choose not to look into the available evidence that supports this truth, then you are complicit in perpetuating the lies and obfuscation of the ones that started it. I don't say this as an insult or personal attack - but merely as a relevant fact stated clearly and without guile.

That is why I challenge you to read Michael C. Ruppert's book. I would also suggest the 2 books written recently by David Ray Griffin on the 9/11 disaster and the 9/11 Commission. You should also try to get your news from independent sources, instead of the mainstream (read: corporate) print and TV/radio media, which is now largely right-wing owned.

Henceforth, you cannot plead ignorance unless it is intentional avoidance on your part.

Another thought... I believe that we would be in Iraq in a very similar circumstance today even if Kerry had been president during Bush'd first term...I think Kerry would have sent us across the border as well.

It would have (and should have) been Gore, not Kerry, as the President from '00-'04 rather than GWB. Judging from Gore's record, I doubt that a Gore administration would have manufactured anything like the Iraq incursion, nor for that matter the equally atrocious domestic policies that this country is now beset with.

I do not think the U.S. would have embarked on the ill-advised global "pre-emptive"/offensive military strategy it is now engaged in had Gore rightfully ascended to the Presidency.

To reply you your further statements, 9/11 would have been dealt with by any President in office at the time it happened, of that I am certain. I do think the perps would have been tracked down to better results by almost anyone other than GWB or those backing the neo-con agenda, (the Bush cabal has been in bed for too long with the House of Saud and the Bin Laden's for them to seriously attempt to bring ALL of the potential guilty to account for their connections to 9/11).

It is also a fact that Pakistan's ISI (national intel agency) is complicit in the facilitating of 9/11, along with many other's that Bush/Cheney had been well aware of before the disaster occured.

You can call me a conspiracy theorist, that's fine with me - as long as you call yourself a coincidence theorist.