Friday, September 30, 2011
Will the Warmonger
Here are the facts, people. a) I was against the Iraq War from day one (I definitely would have been one of those 22 no-votes in the Senate). b) While I was fully in favor of the military action to take out as much of the al Qaeda terror network as possible, when that same military initiative transformed itself into an occupation/nation-building enterprise, I at that point opposed it (unlike the vast majority of Democrats who continued to champion it as some sort of noble war). c) I was opposed (consistently and vociferously so) to BOTH military surges; Mr. Bush's in Iraq and Mr. Obama's in Afghanistan. d) I was against our whole getting involved in Libya (I saw neither a national interest nor a stark distinction between the two warring parties). e) I was even against the first frigging Iraq War (this, though, I've since admitted to being wrong on that one)....................................................................................................How ANYBODY in his or her right mind could call a person with this type of resume, "pro war", is absolutely astounding. I mean, come on here, people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Bring the troops home; send the drone in!
...unlike the vast majority of Democrats who continued to champion it as some sort of noble war...
If spines were common among democrats I figure they would have opposed most of the military campaigns Bush and now Obama either pushed us into or gotten us deeper involved.
Yeah, taking out al Qaeda is a given but nation-building is ultimately a self-defeating proposition which along with the Bush tax cuts has broken the nation.
But back to my original point, democrats, like all politicians, fear for the safety of their cushy jobs which has the side benefit of some awesome health care and all the hot babes who all attracted to guys with power.
Making a real statesmen-like stand for truth, reason, and justice only gets you called dirty names and possibly defeated in the next election.
I guess you are a war-monger because you allowed the very legal retaliation against a nation that attacked us (Afghanistan) and scoff at ideas suggested by some to turn Bin Laden over to be tried in a terrorist court.
Beach: The Bush tax cuts for the middle class did NOT break the nation, sorry. The ruling elites stealing more from us: now that would have broken us.
dmark: Sorry, I don't know where you get your information but Bush's tax cuts helped the rich mother fuckers far more than the five to ten bucks a paycheck I saw.
And yes, they did break the country along with two fucking wars that that dumbass got us involved in without wanting to pay for them.
Find someone who actually wants to hear your lectures.
dmark I suppose you still believe Saddam was hiding WMD's when we invaded in 2003.
Democrats believed that once we invaded we were obligated to do something for the Afghan people... which would be to get rid of the oppressive Taliban regime.
What you wanted to do was bomb them, kill thousands of innocents and leave. The difference is that Will Hart doesn't give a shit about the Afghan people and the Democrats do.
What's "absolutely astounding" is you advocating IN FAVOR OF WAR and then suggesting anyone who calls you "pro war" is not in their right mind.
You're actually pro-war in the worst possible way. You want to kill (who you perceive to be) the bad guys and ignore the collateral damage.
BTW, both wars were illegal under international law. Anyone saying otherwise is simply displaying their ignorance on the subject.
Also, there is no "terrorist court". bin Laden couldn't have been tried in it since it doesn't exist.
Beach: You may be uninformed on these issues, but I refuse to dumb down just to make you happy. The bush tax cuts were primarily for the middle class. Both wars were paid for. Save your lectures and your "I lie so you must believe me" attitude for others.
Beach also asked: "dmark I suppose you still believe Saddam was hiding WMD's when we invaded in 2003."
I only believe what is true. The liberation forces DID discovered WMD hidden from the first Gulf War, which Saddam had refused to declare. This refusal was a violation of the cease fire. So it is not a matter of "still believing", but a matter of being informed that Saddam was indeed stockpiling WMD in 2003.
WD said: "BTW, both wars were illegal under international law. Anyone saying otherwise is simply displaying their ignorance on the subject."
You have completely failed to make a case on this.
Again, what is the status of Boyle's complaint before the ICC?
As for the terrorist court, I have no idea if it exists now, but you have discussed it multiple times with Will, and you were in favor of it.
dmarks: The bush tax cuts were primarily for the middle class. Both wars were paid for.
This is truly pathetic. First you lecture BB about "dumbing down" your comments and then accuse him of lying... but everything you asserted is a lie, and dumb lies at that.
The tax cuts were primiarly for the wealthy. Both wars went on the credit card. Both of these points, especially the last one, are common knowledge. Everyone except the most ill-informed knows these are facts.
dmarks: The liberation forces DID discovered WMD hidden from the first Gulf War...
No, that did not happen. George bush admitted as much. I could dig up a quote if you'd like.
dmarks: You have completely failed to make a case on this.
The US was in CLEAR violation of international law. This is a simple fact. I don't need to "make a case". The reason Boyle's complaint isn't being listened to is because people chose to ignore the lawbreaking of the world's only superpower. The invasion was still illegal and bush is still a war criminal.
dmarks seems to believe that if someone isn't charged with a crime (but they are suspected) then that means they are innocent. Is it your belief that if you can get away with a crime then you should go ahead and commit the crime?
dmarks: As for the terrorist court, I have no idea if it exists now, but you... were in favor of it.
There never was a terrorist court. I never discussed a terrorist court with Will. If there were such a thing I'd strongly oppose it.
Let's fact check, shall we?
Truth: 500 undeclared WMD found in Iraq between 2003 and 2006.
"The reason Boyle's complaint isn't being listened to is because people chose to ignore the lawbreaking of the world's only superpower"
Yeah, right. Nothing to do with the fact that the claim is worthless and wild. The fact that actual legal authorities have rejected the idea that Bush is a war criminal.
"dmarks seems to believe that if someone isn't charged with a crime (but they are suspected) then that means they are innocent. Is it your belief that if you can get away with a crime then you should go ahead and commit the crime?'
No, Bush isn't even suspected. There was no crime that Bush even got away with.
dmarks: Let's fact check, shall we?
Your "fact checking" is BS dmarks. The heading says munitions were found that "Meet WMD Criteria". What that means is there was "WMD" found... but not really. This report discusses degraded and misplaced chemical weapons.
The article dmarks linked to says, "the munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s... Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended..."
The bush administration never made the case that Iraq should be invaded so we could find buried, lost, misplaced and degraded chemical weapons!
Weak. Incredibly weak. Which is why most people (excluding those who are desperate to justify bush's illegal invasion) say we found no WMD.
Amazing how you weasel around that these were WMD. The retaliation was quite legal, and WMD were found. And that's not BS.
I remember when our soldiers were first approaching the Iraqi capital and there were worries about chemical weapons being used against them. They weren't. I think the reason why is fairly obvious.
Yet dmarks thinks buried and degraded barrels that those in the Iraqi government misplaced and had long forgotten about constitute a just reason for invasion. It's ridiculous. Not to mention a war crime.
I'm with you on all the above. Except the first gulf war that you have since recognized and repented for your error.
So lets get past the BS and move on to solving the nation's serious fiscal and financial crises.
Oh wait, I almost forgot for a moment, we have to wait until we have a serious and competent President to provide the leadership to solve that bit of National trouble.
wd, you are absolutely insane. And you've shamelessly and moronically mischaracterized my position YET AGAIN. Yes, I was in favor of annihilating the terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11 (as were basically 99% of the U.S. public at the time) and, no, I wasn't in favor of the type of nation-building that the British attempted and failed and the Russians attempted and failed. What exactly is the part of this very precisely defined military objective do you not understand?............And what in the hell are you doing now, spinning for the Democrats, saying that it is actually a GOOD thing that we're over there fighting the Taliban (and killing even MORE of these innocent civilians that you so desperately say that you care about)? You're not even remotely making sense at this point, dude..............As for the civilians that were killed in the early part of the Afghan mission, there are only 3 real possibilities here. a) The terrorist training camps were built in civilian areas. b) These innocent civilians weren't so innocent. Or c) the American military intentionally targeted civilians. What theory do you propose, wd?
Yes, wd, I "perceive" al Qaeda to be the bad guys, just like President Obama does.
WD said: "Yet dmarks thinks buried and degraded barrels that those in the Iraqi government misplaced and had long forgotten about constitute a just reason for invasion. It's ridiculous. Not to mention a war crime."
Saddam's possession of WMD was just one of many significant and aggressive violations of the cease-fire agreements.
Like many pundits, bloggers, and armchair attorneys, you use "War crimes" as a meaningless insult, and think the power of imagination means "guilty". Bush is innocent because there's no evidence of war crimes, and allegations of such were considered by actual informed people to be beneath consideration. Boyle's claims against the ICC were rejected because they were baseless. No matter how much you insist it is because of a bogus "superpower" theory.
I think dmarks is an armchair attorney. He outright dismisses any and all charges of war crimes because he feels the invasions of TWO countries were justified... despite the FACT that they were both illegal under international law... and there is no getting around that FACT.
But bush's war crimes don't stop there! What about the torture dmarks? Torture is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. Calling torture "enhanced interrogation" does not change the fact that what bush authorized (which he admits he did) was torture.
Are people who say bush is guilty of a war crime for authorizing torture also "armchair attorneys"?
Are accusations of war crimes for torture also beneath consideration by the never named or cited informed individuals you constantly refer to?
I think these "informed people" are actually Right-wing bush apologists and their obviously biased opinions made in their own self interest (because they are pro-war) are beneath consideration.
I didn't imagine bush authorized torture, he admitted it.
Will: [1] you've shamelessly and moronically mischaracterized my position YET AGAIN... [2] Yes, I was in favor of annihilating the terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11... [3] no, I wasn't in favor of the type of nation-building that the British attempted and failed and the Russians attempted and failed. [4] What exactly is the part of this very precisely defined military objective do you not understand?... [5] And what in the hell are you doing now, spinning for the Democrats, saying that it is actually a GOOD thing that we're over there fighting the Taliban. [6] What theory do you propose, wd?
[1] No, I'm not.
[2] Yes, so you've said. I understand this, even though, for some odd reason, you believe I do not and restate this position every single fricking time I describe you as being pro-war... as if war with fewer objectives somehow isn't war.
[3] I am aware of the failures in Afghanistan of others who waged war there in the past. I also do not support nation building of the nature we are attempting for that reason.
[4] How it isn't war.
[5] I'm not "spinning for the Democrats". I stated their well-intentioned position. I don't support it. It would be a noble goal if it was possible, but I think history has shown that it isn't.
[6] That you're full of shit. I've already provided you with links that give figures for how many civilians were killed early in the war. Your only defense of this is to accuse these innocent civilians of being collaborators, which I think is despicable.
You've NEVER heard of missiles going astray and not hitting their intended targets? You've never heard of faulty intelligence resulting in a target being incorrectly selected? Do you really think that never happens? My understanding is that it happens frequently.
Also, civilians were killed by the Taliban... but these deaths would not have occurred if we had not attacked... so I count us as being responsible for these causalities too.
"I think dmarks is an armchair attorney. He outright dismisses any and all charges of war crimes ..."
I dismiss them because the actual authorities dismiss them.
"because he feels the invasions of TWO countries were justified..."
Yes, it is my opinion that both retaliations were justified. Regarless of my opinion, neiher were war crimes. All of the charges of war crimes have been rejected, not even worthy of any consideration by the actual legal authorities and bodies involved.
I defer to qualified people who actually know things, not "not ready for prime time" cranks like Boyle.
"..."despite the FACT that they were both illegal under international law..."
Fact? This is your opinion which holds no water. Sorry, laughed-at allegations of criminality do not mean 'facts'
For the record, I opposed the first Gulf War. And the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. I did however advocate sending cruise missles into all of Saddam's palaces as well as anywhere Bin Laden may have been lurking.
That should make Dmarks happy. Probably piss off WD though. I piss everyone off eventually.
Just for the record, wd, it doesn't take all that much "intelligence" (yes, perhaps you even have enough of it) to locate a terrorist training compound. They kind of stick out like a sore thumb, if you know what I mean. And the frigging drones are VERY accurate. You don't aim one at Hartford CT and have it land in Newark New Jersey.............And, no, the civilians being collaborators WASN'T my only defense. I also said that the terrorists could have purposefully put the training compounds near population centers and/or used these civilians as shields. That happens quite a bit, too, wd.
Hey, Truth. You know what wd's response to 9/11 would have been? He would have a) handed over all of our "evidence" to the Taliban and b) agreed to hand over Mr. bin Laden to an organization comprised of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Hafez al Assad, Yasser Arafat, and the Saudi royal family. I mean, I don't know about you but that wouldn't have been my first inclination.
Hey, wd, if I'm pro-war (and, yes, you've totally pissed me off on this one), what in the hell is President Obama; Genghis Khan?............And dmarks asks a very good question, too. If Mr. Bush (who I've conceded on many occasions wasn't a very good President) is in fact a war criminal, then why hasn't the fellow ever been charged? Not enough progressives?
It's because the Obama Administration has applied pressure to any organization that was thinking about it. There was a case about to go ahead in Spain, but the Obama Administration intervened and stopped it.
No president ever wants to give up power. Obama knows that if he OKs, or appears to OK a prosecution of bush there will be political consequences. And, since he is continuing a lot of the illegal bush policies (drone strikes in Pakistan and rendition)... if bush were prosecuted then it's possible he could be too.
But bush is a war criminal, just an unprosecuted one. He violated international law with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and he violated the Geneva Conventions by warboarding prisoners and rendering prisoners to other countries for torture.
Maybe you think the US can do whatever the hell it wants simply because it is the US, but it boggles my mind how you can flat out deny that these laws exist.
Pro-war AND a bush apologist! AND he blows a gasket when I point these things out?
wd, check out some of my posts from 2007 and 2008. For you to refer to me as a "Bush apologist", just because I'm a little reticent to throw around such loaded terms as "war criminal", is yet another example of just how far out of the mainstream you are. I mean, really, who in the hell else is talking like this? My God, even Howard Dean has said that, as much as he disagrees with Mr. Bush, he would never refer to the man as a fascist. HOWARD DEAN!!
Howard Dean blows his top on national TV and claims to hate half of America. But he won't go as far as to make the vicious slander against his political opponents as WD does.
Apparently, dmarks.
Will: Apparently, dmarks.
Apparently not. First of all, what dmarks says about Howard Dean saying he hates half of America is false. It never happened. Secondly, the truth isn't "slander".
dmarks's point is that a person isn't a "war criminal" until he (Churchill ordered the carpet-bombing of Dresden in what can only be referred to a wantonly punitive action - but he isn't a war criminal because he was never charged or convicted) or she is arrested, tried, and convicted. The sun doesn't rise or fall any other way. I'm sorry but it doesn't
I never said my designation of bush as a war criminal was in any way official. I say he is a war criminal because he has committed what is (and has been) defined as war crimes... I very well realized he hasn't been convicted... you trying to spin this as me thinking he has is quite dishonest, IMO.
Also, my writing that bush is a war criminal isn't slander because, "defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published with fault, meaning as a result of negligence or malice... Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation".
My writing that bush is a war criminal is also not libel because I made a "fair comment on a matter of public interest".
Also note that, "this defense applies to opinion only, as compared to a statement of fact. The defendant usually needs to prove that the opinion is honestly held and the comments were not motivated by actual malice. (Malice means knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth of falsity of the defamatory statement)".
My belief that bush is a war criminal is a non-malicious opinion on a matter of public interest that is honestly held.
I am guilty of neither slander nor libel.
Post a Comment