Originally posted by tsscls
I have noticed a trend among his detractors though, he's two opposite things at once. He is simultaneously an evil "Emperor Palpitine" who has deliberately masterminded an unjust war for (place your nutty theory here), or he's a bumbling doofus that can't tie his own shoes in the morning.
"He's too dumb, to eat pretzels, apparently smart enough to fix an election."
NOFX
Originally posted by BigRed
Bush apologists certainly would like to chalk it up to an intelligence failure wouldn't they?Bush controls the intelligence communities. So if they do have any shortcomings (which they did no doubt), then it would be his fault.
The evidence showed Saddam wasn't linked to 9/11 and Saddam would only use WMD's (if he had them) in self-defense against us if we attacked him. Not to attack us. Bush pressured the intelligence to meet his agenda.
Sure they would..because that's what it was to anyone that isnt a brain dead paranoid sheep.
And Bush doesn't control the intelligence communities..the directors of each branch control them.
Bush acted on information presented to him, I hope any other president would make the same decision.
Like someone else said should we really make our presidents have to doubt themselves whenever they need to make a decision?
Originally posted by tsscls
Then you should extend your definition of criminality to every President we've ever had. Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine? The Roosevelt corrolary? The U.S. as a nation has organized hundreds of coup de'tats in it's history to serve our needs and preserve our national security. Our hands are bloody, but sometimes it's neccesary to ensure our survival as a nation. And sometimes it's just good business. If you really want to read something interesting, I reccomend "War Is A Racket" by Smedley Butler. It's a short and sweet eye-opener.
However, no necessity can be sought from the Iraq War with regards to American interests or American security.
Originally posted by BigRed
Unfortunately, certain blood on our hands was necessary. Doesn't make it right.However, no necessity can be sought from the Iraq War with regards to American interests or American security.
I'd argue that it was very necessary, just not from the reasons that were given. After Sept. 11, we had to go into Afghanistan because the Taliban were directly linked to that attack and were harboring Al-Quada and bin Laden. The American public demanded some sort of retribution, i.e, we wanted blood. That offensive went far better (quicker) than anyone foresaw, and we pushed our targets into Pakistan. Pakistan was already an unstable country, and it has nuclear weapons. We could not risk pushing that country into a civil war, so we had to change the location of the "war on terror" (i hate that term) that we were fighting. We had to give our "enemies" a military target to strike at, and we had to have a "safe" battlefield to fight this war on. We went into the only country in that area where we had fought a war in the recent past. One where we still had contacts and with a leader no one would cry too loudly about being deposed. Enter Iraq. I would wager that this was a strategically effective maneuver given the fact that it escalated the war beyond the abilities of our "enemies" to maintain it with their already limited resources. It took the pressure off of us in Afghanistan, as we weren't viewed as harshly as we could have been as "occupiers." It took the attention away from Pakistan, who were our "allies" and clearly harboring our "enemies." Finally, it gave a theatre for this imaginary "war on terror that we have been told will be occuring until the end of time, or until its over, whichever comes first. Whatever, it's served it's purpose, which was to prevent another attack on American soil. Additional domestic attacks would have probably sped up the finacial crisis we find ourselves in now and maybe have worsened it. I don't like any of this, but it's true. We live in a shitty, messed-up world, and we're all to blame.
P.S. So you're saying that every time we started a brushfire conflict without the transparecy of this one, it was all right? The 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état was OK in your book? Our documented use of our military to expand our foreign interests in South America and China in the early part of the 20th century were justified? You are naive.
Originally posted by tsscls
I'd argue that it was very necessary, just not from the reasons that were given. After Sept. 11, we had to go into Afghanistan because the Taliban were directly linked to that attack and were harboring Al-Quada and bin Laden. The American public demanded some sort of retribution, i.e, we wanted blood. That offensive went far better (quicker) than anyone foresaw, and we pushed our targets into Pakistan. Pakistan was already an unstable country, and it has nuclear weapons. We could not risk pushing that country into a civil war, so we had to change the location of the "war on terror" (i hate that term) that we were fighting. We had to give our "enemies" a military target to strike at, and we had to have a "safe" battlefield to fight this war on. We went into the only country in that area where we had fought a war in the recent past. One where we still had contacts and with a leader no one would cry too loudly about being deposed. Enter Iraq. I would wager that this was a strategically effective maneuver given the fact that it escalated the war beyond the abilities of our "enemies" to maintain it with their already limited resources. It took the pressure off of us in Afghanistan, as we weren't viewed as harshly as we could have been as "occupiers." It took the attention away from Pakistan, who were our "allies" and clearly harboring our "enemies." Finally, it gave a theatre for this imaginary "war on terror that we have been told will be occuring until the end of time, or until its over, whichever comes first. Whatever, it's served it's purpose, which was to prevent another attack on American soil. Additional domestic attacks would have probably sped up the finacial crisis we find ourselves in now and maybe have worsened it. I don't like any of this, but it's true. We live in a shitty, messed-up world, and we're all to blame.
We diverted resource, attention and soldiers away from Afghanistan and specifically the Taliban and Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. We didn't fight the war in Afghanistan even in the beginning as hard as we should have and instead let terrorists (like Bin Laden himself) to spill over into Pakistan and now Pakistan is becoming unstable and they have a nuke. The Taliban is also resurging in Afghanistan and may be stronger than before we even went in. In Iraq, sure a dictator was removed, but there are dictators all over the world that have probably done worse than Saddam and we aren't going after them. Iraq is in shambles, 100,000 Iraqis dead, their families effected, over a million moved to other neighboring countries and even though under Saddam (a dictator), they had stability; at least they had stability. Not to mention, four thousand dead soldiers and three trillion dollars for a War that has no meaning to America. No security reason. No 'fighting for our freedoms' situation. Just a purely an invasion of aggression.
Originally posted by tssclsApparently you didn't read my post when I said it wasn't right.
[B]P.S. So you're saying that every time we started a brushfire conflict without the transparecy of this one, it was all right? The 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état was OK in your book? Our documented use of our military to expand our foreign interests in South America and China in the early part of the 20th century were justified? You are naive.
I'm a libertarian. Libertarians believe in a foreign policy of non-interventionism. If I had my way, the last over one hundred years of American interventionism (outside of WW2) wouldn't have happened. None of the business in the South American countries, the Asian countries or the Middle Eastern countries. None of the countless dead Americans, countless dead civilians in other countries and countless dollars spent on meaningless crap to spread the American empire. But I can't go back and charge corpses.
We can however charge President Bush. He is alive and we can bring him to justice for crimes.
The only blood that unfortunately must be on our hands (but in a perfect world, it wouldn't) is the slaughtering of Indians and Mexicans to expand the United States in the beginning.
So your charge of me being 'naive' is again off base. The only ignorance around here is people asserting that a President shouldn't atone for criminality.
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
This is like suing mcdonalds for making people fat.
This however, has basis in fact. Even as I said, if you don't agree that Bush should be charged with murder, certainly you can look at the evidence with an open mind and find that he did engage in lying and deception to get into a war that placed soldiers in harm way and cost a crapload of money.
Originally posted by BigRed
What? Okay, let's see.We diverted resource, attention and soldiers away from Afghanistan and specifically the Taliban and Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. We didn't fight the war in Afghanistan even in the beginning as hard as we should have and instead let terrorists (like Bin Laden himself) to spill over into Pakistan and now Pakistan is becoming unstable and they have a nuke. The Taliban is also resurging in Afghanistan and may be stronger than before we even went in. In Iraq, sure a dictator was removed, but there are dictators all over the world that have probably done worse than Saddam and we aren't going after them. Iraq is in shambles, 100,000 Iraqis dead, their families effected, over a million moved to other neighboring countries and even though under Saddam (a dictator), they had stability; at least they had stability. Not to mention, four thousand dead soldiers and three trillion dollars for a War that has no meaning to America. No security reason. No 'fighting for our freedoms' situation. Just a purely an invasion of aggression.
Apparently you didn't read my post when I said it wasn't right.
I'm a libertarian. Libertarians believe in a foreign policy of non-interventionism. If I had my way, the last over one hundred years of American interventionism (outside of WW2) wouldn't have happened. None of the business in the South American countries, the Asian countries or the Middle Eastern countries. None of the countless dead Americans, countless dead civilians in other countries and countless dollars spent on meaningless crap to spread the American empire. But I can't go back and charge corpses.
We can however charge President Bush. He is alive and we can bring him to justice for crimes.
The only blood that unfortunately must be on our hands (but in a perfect world, it wouldn't) is the slaughtering of Indians and Mexicans to expand the United States in the beginning.
Pakistan has had nukes for quite some time.
My point is this, be prepared to try Carter, Bush Sr. and Clinton too. Get a jury ready for Obama. You are naive.
Originally posted by KidRock
Sure they would..because that's what it was to anyone that isnt a brain dead paranoid sheep.And Bush doesn't control the intelligence communities..the directors of each branch control them.
Bush acted on information presented to him, I hope any other president would make the same decision.
Like someone else said should we really make our presidents have to doubt themselves whenever they need to make a decision?
Bush was in a haste for war. Why didn't he take Chirac's advise and wait for the Blix's inspections to finish in Iraq? Bush said we were 'forced' to War. Bullshit. The evidence doesn't suggest that in the least.
Originally posted by tsscls
Pakistan has had nukes for quite some time.
My point is this, be prepared to try Carter, Bush Sr. and Clinton too. Get a jury ready for Obama. You are naive.
Are you going to respond to anything else I said?
Pakistan having nukes 'for quite some time' doesn't negate that we caused them to become unstable.
And history shouldn't negate present criminality either. And the fact that we didn't prosecute historical criminality shouldn't negate our prudence to do it in the present.
Originally posted by tsscls
And quit arguing with a Republican. I just told you my completely detached and logical reasoning as to why it was neceesary to go into Iraq. I never argued the morality of it.
I argued why your logic was illogical and the reasoning unreasonable. We could of course discuss morality.
You're main reason was that it took the 'pressure off of us' in Afghanistan. That's where we should have been. But then you go on to say 'as occupiers'. What the ****? We became invaders and occupiers in Iraq.
Originally posted by inimalist
unfortunately, much the same can be said of American endeavors around the world, especially in Latin America, where it was the boogy man of communism...
Originally posted by tsscls
So Bugliosi claims that Paula Jones shouldn't have been allowed to sue Clinton because of the importance of maintaining the dignity of the Presidency, but he would advocate trying a sitting president for murder? This is a real clear thinking individual.
And Bugliosi doesn't argue what you just suggested. He argued that the case should have been postponed like they are allowed to do.
Originally posted by BigRed
Uh...you should read the book. He never suggests charging Bush with criminality while he is a sitting President. He specifically mentions how the Constitution has rules against that in some form.And Bugliosi doesn't argue what you just suggested. He argued that the case should have been postponed like they are allowed to do.
Even so, Harry Truman set a precedence which allowed presidents to invoke executive privilege even after the expiration of their terms, which would render the prosecution of one a moot point. Does he mention how you would get around this in his book? If so, I might read it.
You could argue that Nixon wasn't allowed to invoke it, but he was up to a point.
The supreme court stated, "To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of a workable government"
I believe the Iraq war and any information regarding it would be considered of both military and diplomatic concerns.