tkhayes 348 #1 August 22, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/ 'nuf said I think - CNN was a staunch war supporter at first, now switching to the other side..... even the media might be following public opinion for a change so NOW can we accuse GWB of war crimes?....... TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #2 August 23, 2005 Quoteso NOW can we accuse GWB of war crimes?.......TK What kind of war crimes? Like the mass gassing of 250,000+ Kurds? Or the total death toll of approximately 3M muslims between three countries, two of which were invaded without provokation? Or the financing of suicide bombers and their families? Or setting up "rape" rooms for his sons? Hmmmm... CNN was never a staunch war supporter. They were screaming quagmire after our tanks rolled into Baghdad and parked there for a bit. Public opinion of the war, versus public opinion of the occupation, versus public opinion of the President's policies are different in polls only. I will point this out: The President is my Commander-in-Chief. People that say they support the troops but don't support the President are lying to themselves. If you support the troops, then support their commanders, for it is they who direct the troops, and execute the policies as they are developed. Meanwhile, the mainstream media have become a sounding board for the insurgents themselves. Sh*t, not even the Iraqis like the insurgents as much as CNN, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, et al, do. If I got my news solely from the main stream media, I'd be depressed too. Nowhere else do you find such terrible information about an area where so much progress has stemmed. AP reporters in Baghdad rarely leave their hotels for crying out loud. You want to know what's been going on over there, find the news from the soldiers themselves. There are dozens of blogs out there, and it isn't all propaganda either.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,072 #3 August 23, 2005 >People that say they support the troops but don't support the >President are lying to themselves. People who believe they must support anything the president does, or risk betraying their friends serving overseas, have had their brains quite effectively washed. Machiavelli himself could not have come up with a better trick for quelling dissent. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about anyone else." -Theodore Roosevelt "Certainly, every patriotic citizen will always be ready, if need be, to fight and to die under his flag wherever it may wave in justice and for the best interests of the country. But ... woe to the republic if it should ever be without citizens patriotic and brave enough to defy the demagogues' cry and to haul down the flag wherever it may be raised not in justice and not for the best interests of the country. Such a republic would not last long." -Carl Shurz, Secretary of the Interior, 1899 "During times of war, a herd-feeling inevitably arises. There always is a demand for 100 percent Americanism, among 100 percent of the population. The State is a jealous God and will brook no rivals. Its sovereignty must pervade everyone, and all feeling must be run into the stereotyped forms of romantic patriotic militarism which is the traditional expression of the State.... War becomes almost a sport between the hunters and the hunted. The pursuit of enemies within outweighs in psychic attractiveness the assault on the enemy without. The whole terrific force of the State is brought to bear against the heretics." -Randolph Bourne, writer and publisher, 1910 (edited to add some relevant quotes) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mikki_ZH 0 #4 August 23, 2005 Quote What kind of war crimes? Like the mass gassing of 250,000+ Kurds? Or the total death toll of approximately 3M muslims between three countries, two of which were invaded without provokation? Or the financing of suicide bombers and their families? Or setting up "rape" rooms for his sons? Hmmmm... One crime does not justify another...Michi (#1068) hsbc/gba/sba www.swissbaseassociation.ch www.michibase.ch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #5 August 23, 2005 I will point this out: The President is my Commander-in-Chief. People that say they support the troops but don't support the President are lying to themselves. If you support the troops, then support their commanders, for it is they who direct the troops, and execute the policies as they are developed. That's absolutely ridiculous. I support the people who are sent over there 100%. BUT I think it's WRONG that they were sent there to begin with. I think we're gotten ourselves into a helluva mess that's not going to have the peachy ending that the president and his compadres promised. Now people use tactics like saying that I'm "lying to myself" if I think beyond their simplistic algorithm --that's bogus. They call me un-American for not supporting this horribly shameful course of action. My world is not so black and white that I can't have thoughts that to you seem conflicted. Most intelligent adults are capable of thinking beyond two dimensions. But unfortunately many are unwilling to do so. Peace~ linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 August 23, 2005 Quote One crime does not justify another... So produce the war crimes. You can believe that the President's engagement in Iraq was misguided, foolish, provacative, hostile to peace, immoral, whatever....but those aren't 'crimes.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #7 August 23, 2005 Quoteso NOW can we accuse GWB of war crimes?....... sure, you could...but i don't think he's gonna need johnny cochran to beat that bs. "Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mikki_ZH 0 #8 August 23, 2005 Sorry, I expressed myself wrong. In my opinion (and in the opinion of many others) the war is illegal and therefore a crime.Michi (#1068) hsbc/gba/sba www.swissbaseassociation.ch www.michibase.ch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waltappel 1 #9 August 23, 2005 QuoteQuoteso NOW can we accuse GWB of war crimes?....... sure, you could...but i don't think he's gonna need johnny cochran to beat that bs. Good thing, since Johnny died a while back. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #10 August 23, 2005 QuoteI will point this out: The President is my Commander-in-Chief. People that say they support the troops but don't support the President are lying to themselves. If you support the troops, then support their commanders, for it is they who direct the troops, and execute the policies as they are developed. That's absolutely ridiculous. I support the people who are sent over there 100%. BUT I think it's WRONG that they were sent there to begin with. ... ... Most intelligent adults are capable of thinking beyond two dimensions. But unfortunately many are unwilling to do so. Then think beyond two dimensions on this: If you call someone a shit-bag long enough, eventually they will begin behaving like one. Criticizing the President is one thing. Disparaging him is another. If you support the troops, then supporting the chain of command, with the hope and encouragement to make sound decisions, is also of benefit to the troops on the ground. Even if you don't agree with these decisions, standing with your countrymen is important even in dissent and is still patriotic. What I'm tired of reading, in the press, and around the web, is "The President is Stupid" and "Bush is a war criminal". Rarely is it with thought or simply "I disagree with his decision because I believe he didn't gather enough information about -- -- -- and --- --- --- and it appears that --- --- --- could have accomplished ---" Instead, it's the same old shrill: "he's stupid, and he doesn't know what to do" and "bring the troops home now" without any thought to the impact on human life or society or politics or economy or simply finishing the job, even if you disagree with it. When I ship off for the sand box later this year, I expect to see horrific and dangerous things, and amazing evolution of society struggling to get its boots on. Regardless, I know that what I'll see, good or bad, it won't be like how it's being reported here.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #11 August 23, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteso NOW can we accuse GWB of war crimes?....... sure, you could...but i don't think he's gonna need johnny cochran to beat that bs. Good thing, since Johnny died a while back. Walt yep...blue skies, black pin-stripe suits for johnny."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #12 August 23, 2005 QuoteCNN was a staunch war supporter at first, People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #13 August 23, 2005 QuoteWhen I ship off for the sand box later this year, I expect to see horrific and dangerous things, and amazing evolution of society struggling to get its boots on. Regardless, I know that what I'll see, good or bad, it won't be like how it's being reported here. I bet you'll see a heck of a lot of good things, improved things, that we'll never see, thanks to the purposeful omissions by the press. (Well, except for Fox News--- occasionally they show some of the positives from over there.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #14 August 23, 2005 Quotehttp://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/ 'nuf said I think - CNN was a staunch war supporter at first, now switching to the other side..... even the media might be following public opinion for a change so NOW can we accuse GWB of war crimes?....... TK Sure...find a war crime that the President has committed and feel free to take the evidence to your local DA... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #15 August 23, 2005 Quote In my opinion (and in the opinion of many others) the war is illegal and therefore a crime. Sorry, no more sympathy on that argument either, thanks to the selective application of the concept. (IE, it's bad when the US does it) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike111 0 #16 August 23, 2005 QuoteQuote One crime does not justify another... So produce the war crimes. You can believe that the President's engagement in Iraq was misguided, foolish, provacative, hostile to peace, immoral, whatever....but those aren't 'crimes.' Quote I agree. GWB hasn't committedd any mass exceution or geneicide against the iraq. people, Saddam did that. Nor has he ordered the mass exceceution of Irawi prisoners - many were returned back into society. But comparing bush to people like Saddam, Milosevic and Hitler who all have donw war crimes are absurd. After all, the American public did elect this "War criminal". so if he was a monster. Im sure he wouldn;t be in power. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tkhayes 348 #17 August 23, 2005 I was not comparing GWB's crimes to anyone elses. - not sure why you are either. Is starting an unnecessary war, based on lies, NOT a war crime in itself? thousands of innocents have died. If I start something, and people die directly from thopse actions, it is at the VERY LEAST manslaughter, and certainly criminal negligence causign death. A war crime as defined by Geneva? Maybe gray, but a war crime nonetheless. If the majority of Americans THINK he is a war criminal, then I bet he would be accused as tried as one. This is a democracy afterall. When we all objected to the election, we all got told by MANY Republicans in MANY cases that "hey - the majority won - get used to it and we now get what we want...." I would like to see the President and the White House held responsible for the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians and the unnecessary deaths of 1800 US soldiers. TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tkhayes 348 #18 August 23, 2005 new quote from GWB: Quote"We owe them something. We will finish the task that they gave their lives for." PRESIDENT BUSH, on the American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. great - now we are going to continue to fight a wrong war just becasue people have already died in it...... TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #19 August 23, 2005 Quote They were screaming quagmire after our tanks rolled into Baghdad and parked there for a bit. Don't you just hate it when CNN is right and Ann Coulter is wrong?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kinaa 0 #20 August 23, 2005 QuoteSure...find a war crime that the President has committed and feel free to take the evidence to your local DA.. Well, did you hear about "comanders responsybillity"? It is thearm that is used at UN ICT for war crimes. Numerous high rank officers (and even one president of state) were prosecuted for war crimes (that they did not commited personaly) because of "comanders resp." (failure to prevent crimes that someone comited under their command or crimes that was comited on the territory that they controled. Luckilly, USA did not sign agreement that their soldiers can't be prosecuted at ICT WC. Sorry on bad English. I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jenfly00 0 #21 August 23, 2005 QuoteQuoteso NOW can we accuse GWB of war crimes?.......TK What kind of war crimes? Like the mass gassing of 250,000+ Kurds? Or the total death toll of approximately 3M muslims between three countries, two of which were invaded without provokation? Or the financing of suicide bombers and their families? Or setting up "rape" rooms for his sons? Hmmmm... Excellent point. I agree. On a scale of relative evil, Bush comes in second place. jen----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tso-d_chris 0 #22 August 23, 2005 QuoteBut comparing bush to people like Saddam, Milosevic and Hitler who all have donw war crimes are absurd. After all, the American public did elect this "War criminal". so if he was a monster. Im sure he wouldn;t be in power. America installed Saddam as second in command. Surely we wouldn't install a monster, right? And that other guy you mentioned (not Milosevic)? Not only was he elected by the people, but he wrote and published a book telling exactly what he was going to do if he rose to power. And he tried to keep every promise. Have you ever read Mein Kampf? I think it should be required reading for high school students. Not only is the ideology apalling, the rhetoric is not as foreign as we would often like to believe in todays society in the US (and other places, likely). Personally, that scares the hell out of me. Almost as badly as the number of people that will argue differently without even having bothered to read the book, just because they believe that something like that could not happen here. It is important to understand the enemy. It is an ideology, not a group of people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mike111 0 #23 August 23, 2005 But aren;t ideologies and beliefs found within the body of the person - OK the germans wanted revenge for Versailles and Weimar and a lot shared this belief. But if you remove the figure, then it allows for another person to TRY to change these beliefs for which they could be successful. So in some ways, the ideology and beliefs revolve around a person who portrays them to a certain extent. I have read exerts of Mein Kampf, but not eonugh to make a judgement Would you agree? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tso-d_chris 0 #24 August 23, 2005 QuoteBut aren;t ideologies and beliefs found within the body of the person - OK the germans wanted revenge for Versailles and Weimar and a lot shared this belief. But if you remove the figure, then it allows for another person to TRY to change these beliefs for which they could be successful. So in some ways, the ideology and beliefs revolve around a person who portrays them to a certain extent. I have read exerts of Mein Kampf, but not eonugh to make a judgement Post WWI Germany wanted to be prosperous again. AH came along and gave them scapegoat to blame for their lack of prosperity (to avoid have to take responsibility for their own problems), and a plan to bring back that prosperity, a plan that would require sacrifices on the part of the less important non-Germans instead of the Germans. Unfortunately, it was completely irrelevant whether or not his rhetoric was based in fact. The only thing that mattered was that a substantial portion of the population bought his story. AH was the champion of a cause. The awful ideology that was Naziism was not limited to the mind of AH. Many people had the same hysterical fears of non-Germans. But AH was a gifted orator who was able to move the people, a reminder that such charisma is not necessarily a good thing. I agree, though, that to a certain extent, without a champion, a political (or any other type) is not likely to be successful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #25 August 23, 2005 QuoteAfter all, the American public did elect this "War criminal". so if he was a monster. Im sure he wouldn;t be in power. Dangerous logic. Many dictators and criminals have been legally elected by their people.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
tkhayes 348 #17 August 23, 2005 I was not comparing GWB's crimes to anyone elses. - not sure why you are either. Is starting an unnecessary war, based on lies, NOT a war crime in itself? thousands of innocents have died. If I start something, and people die directly from thopse actions, it is at the VERY LEAST manslaughter, and certainly criminal negligence causign death. A war crime as defined by Geneva? Maybe gray, but a war crime nonetheless. If the majority of Americans THINK he is a war criminal, then I bet he would be accused as tried as one. This is a democracy afterall. When we all objected to the election, we all got told by MANY Republicans in MANY cases that "hey - the majority won - get used to it and we now get what we want...." I would like to see the President and the White House held responsible for the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians and the unnecessary deaths of 1800 US soldiers. TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #18 August 23, 2005 new quote from GWB: Quote"We owe them something. We will finish the task that they gave their lives for." PRESIDENT BUSH, on the American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. great - now we are going to continue to fight a wrong war just becasue people have already died in it...... TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #19 August 23, 2005 Quote They were screaming quagmire after our tanks rolled into Baghdad and parked there for a bit. Don't you just hate it when CNN is right and Ann Coulter is wrong?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kinaa 0 #20 August 23, 2005 QuoteSure...find a war crime that the President has committed and feel free to take the evidence to your local DA.. Well, did you hear about "comanders responsybillity"? It is thearm that is used at UN ICT for war crimes. Numerous high rank officers (and even one president of state) were prosecuted for war crimes (that they did not commited personaly) because of "comanders resp." (failure to prevent crimes that someone comited under their command or crimes that was comited on the territory that they controled. Luckilly, USA did not sign agreement that their soldiers can't be prosecuted at ICT WC. Sorry on bad English. I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #21 August 23, 2005 QuoteQuoteso NOW can we accuse GWB of war crimes?.......TK What kind of war crimes? Like the mass gassing of 250,000+ Kurds? Or the total death toll of approximately 3M muslims between three countries, two of which were invaded without provokation? Or the financing of suicide bombers and their families? Or setting up "rape" rooms for his sons? Hmmmm... Excellent point. I agree. On a scale of relative evil, Bush comes in second place. jen----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #22 August 23, 2005 QuoteBut comparing bush to people like Saddam, Milosevic and Hitler who all have donw war crimes are absurd. After all, the American public did elect this "War criminal". so if he was a monster. Im sure he wouldn;t be in power. America installed Saddam as second in command. Surely we wouldn't install a monster, right? And that other guy you mentioned (not Milosevic)? Not only was he elected by the people, but he wrote and published a book telling exactly what he was going to do if he rose to power. And he tried to keep every promise. Have you ever read Mein Kampf? I think it should be required reading for high school students. Not only is the ideology apalling, the rhetoric is not as foreign as we would often like to believe in todays society in the US (and other places, likely). Personally, that scares the hell out of me. Almost as badly as the number of people that will argue differently without even having bothered to read the book, just because they believe that something like that could not happen here. It is important to understand the enemy. It is an ideology, not a group of people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike111 0 #23 August 23, 2005 But aren;t ideologies and beliefs found within the body of the person - OK the germans wanted revenge for Versailles and Weimar and a lot shared this belief. But if you remove the figure, then it allows for another person to TRY to change these beliefs for which they could be successful. So in some ways, the ideology and beliefs revolve around a person who portrays them to a certain extent. I have read exerts of Mein Kampf, but not eonugh to make a judgement Would you agree? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #24 August 23, 2005 QuoteBut aren;t ideologies and beliefs found within the body of the person - OK the germans wanted revenge for Versailles and Weimar and a lot shared this belief. But if you remove the figure, then it allows for another person to TRY to change these beliefs for which they could be successful. So in some ways, the ideology and beliefs revolve around a person who portrays them to a certain extent. I have read exerts of Mein Kampf, but not eonugh to make a judgement Post WWI Germany wanted to be prosperous again. AH came along and gave them scapegoat to blame for their lack of prosperity (to avoid have to take responsibility for their own problems), and a plan to bring back that prosperity, a plan that would require sacrifices on the part of the less important non-Germans instead of the Germans. Unfortunately, it was completely irrelevant whether or not his rhetoric was based in fact. The only thing that mattered was that a substantial portion of the population bought his story. AH was the champion of a cause. The awful ideology that was Naziism was not limited to the mind of AH. Many people had the same hysterical fears of non-Germans. But AH was a gifted orator who was able to move the people, a reminder that such charisma is not necessarily a good thing. I agree, though, that to a certain extent, without a champion, a political (or any other type) is not likely to be successful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #25 August 23, 2005 QuoteAfter all, the American public did elect this "War criminal". so if he was a monster. Im sure he wouldn;t be in power. Dangerous logic. Many dictators and criminals have been legally elected by their people.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
