24 of 25
24
Will Rumsfeld and others be prosecuted for war crimes?
Posted: 23 May 2009 05:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 346 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  699
Joined  2008-10-26
Occam - 22 May 2009 11:22 PM

Sorry our functioning doesn’t meet with your approval.  Maybe you should petition to have our wages lowered.

Occam

I’m not being critical, or sarcastic, or nasty.  All I’m trying to do is make some suggestions that could help members who start a thread which becomes uncontrolled, but which might still have merit.  Why do you have to be unpleasant about it?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2009 06:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 347 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

It ssemed that I was responding in kind to relatively unjustified criticisms.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2009 06:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 348 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15405
Joined  2006-02-14

EI, you are right to point out that this thread got slightly off track with a slightly different discussion of politics. However this strikes me as close enough to the original topic to be allowed to stay in the thread. If we were policing threads so as to be sure that every post in every thread was a direct response to the OP we would be doing little else, and it would also stifle the free discussion that forums such as this enable. Just as with any free discussion, topics will wander, and so long as they are more or less apt, Mods will leave the threads intact. It is up to Mods to decide when this is the case. In this case, we have decided that action is inappropriate. Continued discussion of the issue is off topic in this thread, as per rule (6).

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2009 07:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 349 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  699
Joined  2008-10-26

FROM:  The Huffington Post
Sam Stein
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) 
MoveOn Torture Ad Highlights Cheney For Investigation
04/22/09 05:07 PM

‘MoveOn.org is set to launch an aggressive new ad campaign calling on Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the use of torture during the Bush administration and even raising the specter of targeting former Vice President Dick Cheney.

‘The ad, to premier on the web and blasted out to the group’s five million members, is the strongest push yet from the progressive group on this front. Set to a dark voice, the narrator asks whether a double standard is in place in terms of who has been punished for the authorization and use of torture.

‘“If you torture an individual detainee, you might go to jail,” the script reads, with footage of Lynndie England, the former United States Army reservist involved in the abuses at Abu Ghraib. “But if you authorize an entire secret torture program, you get off scot-free?”

‘The ad then switches to pictures of Cheney, John Yoo and Jay Bybee—the latter two being top figures of the Bush administration legal team that rationalized these interrogation tactics.

‘“America is better than this,” the video concludes. “Ask Attorney General Holder to appoint an independent special prosecutor to investigate these abuses.”’

Image Attachments
s-MOVEON-large.jpg
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2009 07:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 350 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  699
Joined  2008-10-26

FROM: The Spoof

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i53640

Cheney Hospitalized for Believing that His Opinion Still Counts

“Cheney could never control his mind but as long as he hid in various bunkers miles underground and no one could hear his paranoid ramblings, it was pretty OK. Now that he has been released and unarrested, unstraitjacketed and unconfined and everyone can hear his uncontrolled paranoid rantings…it’s just not OK anymore…”


FROM: The Onion

WASHINGTON, DC—Recovering from minor heart surgery Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney stunned both the medical and political establishments when he mysteriously began to experience love for the first time in his life, sources reported Tuesday.

“It is believed to have been the first recorded incident of Cheney exhibiting compassion for his fellow man.

“Calling the vice president’s sudden ability to love “mystifying” but a possible medical breakthrough that could aid other Americans who suffer from acute mulishness and generalized misanthropy…...”

Image Attachments
New-Heart.article.jpg
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2009 07:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 351 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  31
Joined  2009-06-24
Ecrasez l’infame! - 18 February 2009 09:27 PM

According to the Global Policy Forum, Rumsfeld may be prosecuted for war crimes.

“There is now enough evidence to try former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for war crimes, Manfred Nowak, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, recently told “Frontal 21,” a German television program. Nowak’s statement confirms what human rights and legal organizations have been saying for several years, and spotlights one of the Bush administration’s most controversial decisions regarding the use of torture.”

See the full article at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/wanted/2009/0217rumsfeld.htm

LOL  Rumsfeldt is the Churchill of the last decade. Obama is the Neville Chamberlain of the last decade.  wink Churchill was called a war monger too and Hitler the man of peace, just like the liberals called Saddam Hussein a man of peace and the Bush administration the war mongers.  But Churchill saved England.  wink

[ Edited: 24 June 2009 08:01 PM by Carico ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2009 08:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 352 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Sorry, completely unjustified analogies.  As a very conservative friend who was quite high up in the Pentagon military, and who recently retired said, Rumsfeldt was a nut who damaged the military severely because he didn’t understand military philosophy.  I was a child in the 1930s, but I remember many people recognizing that Hitler was the opposite of a man of peace.  I don’t know where you get your ideas, but they aren’t consonent with fact.

And as a liberal, I never called Saddam Hussein a man of peace.  He was a nasty SOB, but it’s been well documented he had nothing to do with 9/11 and that he had no weapons of mass destruction.  Attacking him rather than focusing on Osama Ben Laden was a foolish error of Bush/Cheney.  Either that or they had other nefarious hidden reasons for doing so, such as taking over they oil supply and assuring that we could set up powerful military bases in the middle-east. 

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2009 08:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 353 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  31
Joined  2009-06-24
Occam - 24 June 2009 08:29 PM

Sorry, completely unjustified analogies.  As a very conservative friend who was quite high up in the Pentagon military, and who recently retired said, Rumsfeldt was a nut who damaged the military severely because he didn’t understand military philosophy.  I was a child in the 1930s, but I remember many people recognizing that Hitler was the opposite of a man of peace.  I don’t know where you get your ideas, but they aren’t consonent with fact.

And as a liberal, I never called Saddam Hussein a man of peace.  He was a nasty SOB, but it’s been well documented he had nothing to do with 9/11 and that he had no weapons of mass destruction.  Attacking him rather than focusing on Osama Ben Laden was a foolish error of Bush/Cheney.  Either that or they had other nefarious hidden reasons for doing so, such as taking over they oil supply and assuring that we could set up powerful military bases in the middle-east. 

Occam

Wrong. That’s why England allowed Hitler to invade the Sudetenland and Czecheslovakia. When Chamerlain got back from the Munich conference he was completely convinced that Hitler simply wanted the land that Hitler thought was due him. In fact, he was ecstatic.

I’ve also read many biographies of Churchill and they explained why he was so unpopular until 1939. England thought he was the war monger and he, not Hitler, would lead England into an unnecessary war. If they had recognized who Hitler was from the beginning, they would have stopped him at the start and saved the lives of millions of people. But they didn’t because they thought Hitler was a man of peace and good for Germany.

[ Edited: 24 June 2009 08:42 PM by Carico ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2009 08:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 354 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  262
Joined  2008-06-13
Carico - 24 June 2009 07:57 PM
Ecrasez l’infame! - 18 February 2009 09:27 PM

According to the Global Policy Forum, Rumsfeld may be prosecuted for war crimes.

“There is now enough evidence to try former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for war crimes, Manfred Nowak, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, recently told “Frontal 21,” a German television program. Nowak’s statement confirms what human rights and legal organizations have been saying for several years, and spotlights one of the Bush administration’s most controversial decisions regarding the use of torture.”

See the full article at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/wanted/2009/0217rumsfeld.htm

LOL  Rumsfeldt is the Churchill of the last decade. Obama is the Neville Chamberlain of the last decade.  wink Churchill was called a war monger too and Hitler the man of peace, just like the liberals called Saddam Hussein a man of peace and the Bush administration the war mongers.  But Churchill saved England.  wink

Rumsfeld was a very poor manager of military forces, particularly the army.  He “saved” no one from anything.  His performance as Secretary of Defense in no way resembles Churchill’s management of British forces during WWII.  Here’s some reading you could use.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2009 08:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 355 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

I haven’t seen anything about Obama being convinced that any of the present leaders who may pose a threat are men of peace.  That’s an unjustified conclusion you have jumped to. 

Hitler did help Germany get out of insane inflation and back on their feet in the thirties.  The rest of the western world was ennervated by the global depression and still suffering the effects of the First World War.  There was no way anyone could have managed to do anything about Hitler until he had built a major military force and began invading other European countries.  By then there was no way they could have saved anyone. 

Roosevelt supported Britain but very quietly because there was a major isolationist force in the U.S.  The Republicans in Congress would have had his head had he tried to intervene.  It was only the good fortune of the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor that allowed us to join in the war.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2009 09:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 356 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  31
Joined  2009-06-24
Occam - 24 June 2009 08:51 PM

I haven’t seen anything about Obama being convinced that any of the present leaders who may pose a threat are men of peace.  That’s an unjustified conclusion you have jumped to. 

Hitler did help Germany get out of insane inflation and back on their feet in the thirties.  The rest of the western world was ennervated by the global depression and still suffering the effects of the First World War.  There was no way anyone could have managed to do anything about Hitler until he had built a major military force and began invading other European countries.  By then there was no way they could have saved anyone. 

Roosevelt supported Britain but very quietly because there was a major isolationist force in the U.S.  The Republicans in Congress would have had his head had he tried to intervene.  It was only the good fortune of the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor that allowed us to join in the war.

Occam

The point is that the world was so terrified of war (as the US was of bombing Iraq) that they ignored reality and pretended that Hitler was good for Germany. The end doesn’t justify the means; creating employment by developing armament factories didn’t help Germany in the least! It only created the illusion that the end justifies the means.

That’s right. The US was just as guilty of appeasing Hitler as Obama is of appeasing the Muslims.  wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2009 09:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 357 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

Carico, your understanding of history leaves much to be desired. The great majority of people in both England and the USA considered Hitler to be a dangerous lunatic. There were people who were made excuses for Hitler—Charles Lindbergh was one—but most of those people were not well-regarded as a consequence of their support for him.

The primary public concern in the West in the 1930s was the importance of avoiding a repeat of World War I, which had imposed an enormous toll upon the western democracies. This desire to avoid a war is not something to sneer at. The common calculation was that Germany was incapable of creating the armed forces necessary to fight another war anytime soon. Remember, the German economy during the 20s was a basket case; they had difficulty feeding, housing, and clothing their population. The notion that Germany could put together a war machine capable of defeating the Western democracies was considered absurd. Moreover, the French had built the Maginot Line which everybody, Germans included, considered to be, if not impregnable, at least a very strong defensive line. And the French Army alone had more tanks, planes, artillery, and infantry than the German Army. By all reasonable calculations of the day, the Germans could not pose any significant threat during the 30s. And in fact, when war started in September 1939, one of the high German generals wrote in his diary. “Today began the war that the Fuhrer promised us would not start until 1942.” The remainder of the diary bemoaned the fact that the German Army was not yet ready to take on the Western democracies.

The early successes of the German military were based upon an entirely new and untried theory of war. The blitzkrieg, as it was then called, was really not that big of an idea: the main novelty was close coordination between the Luftwaffe and the mobile ground forces. The only reason that the Germans performed so well in Poland was that they were up against a truly incompetent and under-equipped opponent. The French campaign was another story; the Germans had learned a lot in Poland and in Rommel they had a brilliant practitioner. Even Hitler was taken aback by Rommel’s boldness and at one point demanded that the German forces halt because he was afraid that they had gotten too far ahead of themselves.

Anyway, none of this could have been foreseen in the 1930s. The rational calculation was that Hitler was a dangerous fellow who could be kept at bay by throwing a few bones in his direction. The fact that the strategy did not work does not mean that it was a lousy strategy. Hitler rolled the dice and got very, very lucky. You just can’t plan for that kind of luck.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2009 10:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 358 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  31
Joined  2009-06-24
Chris Crawford - 24 June 2009 09:31 PM

Carico, your understanding of history leaves much to be desired. The great majority of people in both England and the USA considered Hitler to be a dangerous lunatic. There were people who were made excuses for Hitler—Charles Lindbergh was one—but most of those people were not well-regarded as a consequence of their support for him.

The primary public concern in the West in the 1930s was the importance of avoiding a repeat of World War I, which had imposed an enormous toll upon the western democracies. This desire to avoid a war is not something to sneer at. The common calculation was that Germany was incapable of creating the armed forces necessary to fight another war anytime soon. Remember, the German economy during the 20s was a basket case; they had difficulty feeding, housing, and clothing their population. The notion that Germany could put together a war machine capable of defeating the Western democracies was considered absurd. Moreover, the French had built the Maginot Line which everybody, Germans included, considered to be, if not impregnable, at least a very strong defensive line. And the French Army alone had more tanks, planes, artillery, and infantry than the German Army. By all reasonable calculations of the day, the Germans could not pose any significant threat during the 30s. And in fact, when war started in September 1939, one of the high German generals wrote in his diary. “Today began the war that the Fuhrer promised us would not start until 1942.” The remainder of the diary bemoaned the fact that the German Army was not yet ready to take on the Western democracies.

The early successes of the German military were based upon an entirely new and untried theory of war. The blitzkrieg, as it was then called, was really not that big of an idea: the main novelty was close coordination between the Luftwaffe and the mobile ground forces. The only reason that the Germans performed so well in Poland was that they were up against a truly incompetent and under-equipped opponent. The French campaign was another story; the Germans had learned a lot in Poland and in Rommel they had a brilliant practitioner. Even Hitler was taken aback by Rommel’s boldness and at one point demanded that the German forces halt because he was afraid that they had gotten too far ahead of themselves.

Anyway, none of this could have been foreseen in the 1930s. The rational calculation was that Hitler was a dangerous fellow who could be kept at bay by throwing a few bones in his direction. The fact that the strategy did not work does not mean that it was a lousy strategy. Hitler rolled the dice and got very, very lucky. You just can’t plan for that kind of luck.

Sorry but WWII is a hobby of mine. So I’ve watched just about every documentary that’s been made public on it, and have read so incessantly about it that I have rows of books on my booksheves that I’ve read about the ecomonic, socio-economic, political and religious reasons for WWII. So your overview leaves a lot to be desired.  smile

[ Edited: 24 June 2009 10:22 PM by Carico ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2009 11:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 359 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

Are you watching them in English?? I’m wondering how your world view is diametrically opposed to most of American scholars who have spent their careers studying these subjects, or do you just seek out books that validate your world view?

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2009 06:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 360 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  31
Joined  2009-06-24
asanta - 24 June 2009 11:48 PM

Are you watching them in English?? I’m wondering how your world view is diametrically opposed to most of American scholars who have spent their careers studying these subjects, or do you just seek out books that validate your world view?

That’s the same type of mentality that leads to hero worship and lack of understanding of reality…blind faith in others. Sorry friend, but people with degrees all disagree with each other so that proves nothing. Scholars also thought they were right about Hitler until they couldn’t deny his aggressions any longer.

Profile
 
 
   
24 of 25
24