Bush & Saddam Should Stand Trial

Mephisto said:
"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."
Click to expand...

Amen to that.
 
Beerina said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Darth Rotor said:
"Youve got to quit farting."

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

DR
Click to expand...

You're right, and this crowd has been hitting the beans and the halibut 'a la old Toby pretty hard! ;)
 
Mephisto wrote:
At what point would we admit that our presence might be the cause of a great deal of the problems in Iraq?
Click to expand...

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.
 
davefoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mephisto said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
BPSCG said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Mephisto said:
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
Click to expand...

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

Aaron
 
Cylinder said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
a_unique_person said:
Just don't ever talk about 'targetted' wars. When you go to war, civilians will die.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
Kevin, I love your sigs! :D

Edited to add another delicious Dustin quote:

Dustin said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is from his college is BS thread.
 
Splossy said:
The professors argument is pretty weak.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks to you for fleshing out my Kellog-Briand thought. *tips cap*

DR
 
BPSCG said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
This is just idiotic.
 
FreeChile said:
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.
Click to expand...
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."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom