Saturday, December 3, 2011
On George W. Bush and War Criminality 3
According to the proponents of this "George W. Bush is a war criminal" argument, for any military action to be a legal one, it has to have the approval of the United Nations Security Council. Mr. Obama's massive number of drone attacks (which have resulted in literally thousands of civilian casualties) into Pakistan have never received this U.N. authorization. He has thus engaged in an illegal action and must be considered a war criminal. He has to be (this, according to the exceedingly hooplaed criteria)................................................................................................And, no, the fact that Pakistan has apparently given us the OK (though, yes, they, too, seem to be getting weary of the carnage) isn't at all material. In Fact, people, the fact that we're paying them money to cooperate in such a ruthless policy might even make it more odious...............................................................................................P.S. I personally do NOT think that Mr. Obama is a war criminal. This post is purely an act of devil's advocacy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
There ya go again Will, confounding the faint of heart liberals with logic. :)
It's sad when "Bush was a terrible President" isn't sufficient enough a condemnation. I guess that it's the age.
Will: ...any military action to be a legal one, it has to have the approval of the United Nations Security Council.
Wrong. Any military action taken for the purpose of regime change has to have UN approval. President Obama isn't trying to change Pakistan's regime by sending in the drones. Also, Pakistan giving the go ahead is VERY material.
You're not playing devil's advocate, you're twisting the facts to make one of your idiotic Moderate Extremist points.
Oh, so we can drop frigging bombs on whoever it that we want to and it isn't a war crime or a breach of international law? Give me a fucking break. Using this idiotic logic, we could fork over a bunch of money to Castro and if he said, "Yeah, guys, go ahead and incinerate a couple thousand of my poorest people. They're a fucking drain on my corrupted socialistic system anyway." My God, dude, THINK before you write, for Christ.
The UN is a frigging joke wd. And your logic is lacking.
Les, think about it, the legality of any military action can actually rise or fall based solely upon a Chinese and/or Russian veto. What kind of a lackluster morality is that?
Will: Oh, so we can drop frigging bombs on whoever it that we want to and it isn't a war crime or a breach of international law?
No, that isn't what I said. The "idiotic logic" you cite is purely a product of your moderate extremist imagination.
IMO Will Hart should THINK before he twists someone else's words... by Odin!
Will: ...think about it, the legality of any military action can actually rise or fall based solely upon a Chinese and/or Russian veto.
So, the system Will and Les would prefer would be one where the UNITED STATES determines what is legal and what is moral? I guess because we're a superpower "might makes right"? That's what you believe? Or is the reason we're a superpower due to the FACT that we're so much more moral then every other country on the face of the planet?
There is no other way to determine what is legal and what is illegal (internationally) except for an organization like the UN. What is a "joke" are people who suggest otherwise.
For the love of Zeus, dude, THINK before you write, for Allah's sake!
The only time Bill Clinton cared about the UN was when it was bracketed by a C and a T.
Les, think about it, the legality of any military action can actually rise or fall based solely upon a Chinese and/or Russian veto.
Or a US veto when Israel's illegal actions are brought into question.
"No, that isn't what I said. The "idiotic logic" you cite is purely a product of your moderate extremist imagination.".......No? Oh, so then it ISN'T OK for Mr. Obama to be dropping bombs at breakneck speed on a country that didn't attack us and it more than likely DOES constitute a war crime (the fact that literally THOUSANDS of civilians have died because of this rather reckless measure, etc.). Thank you, wd, for clarifying.
"Or a US veto when Israel's illegal actions are brought into question.".............That is actually a very valid point, 37927, and I honor it (though I do kind of agree with Israel's 1981 attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor - realpolitik!). Of course, it also underscores my overall assertion on the arbitrariness of war criminality.............There, you see how much better it is when we aren't calling each other names?
Rusty, what can I say? You're the Shelley Berman of the blogosphere (this, though, I actually still kind of like Clinton).
Will,
You said:
"It's sad when "Bush was a terrible President" isn't sufficient enough a condemnation."
No, no, no...you're doing it all wrong. You need to put some vitriol into it. Here, allow me to show you how to roll like a leftist:
"F*ck that Hitler-f*cking-Bush and his white supremacist motherf*ckers! He's just another rich white guy who hates African-Americans!He's from Texas, and we all know Texas hates African-Americans! He's nothing but a chimpanzee-looking Hitler-wanna be who is a drunk and whose daughters are lushes and sluts! F8ck Faux News! Occupy Wall Street! We are the 99% and we demand you pay for our mistakes! Obama is awesome and his awesomeness scares you because he is an educated, well-spoken, articulate, and finely chiseled pectorals hunk of a true man! You hate him because he's black, I mean, African-American! Teabaggers! Teabaggers! Islamaphobes!"
There. That's how you do it.
If you really want to know the difference between the Nazi war machine, and Japanese Imperial Army, compare the Battle of Changde in China vs the battle of Stalingrad, in Europe.
I bet until this comment YOU have never heard of the Battle of Changde, or the use of both chemical and biological weapons by the Japanese then.
Rusty,
"The only time Bill Clinton cared about the UN was when it was bracketed by a C and a T."
Hmmm...let's see. Take the C and add the UN and then...oh...wait...ohhhhh. I see. Hey, I know this word! That's one of the great unspoken words never to be uttered publicly.
Isn't this the word Chuck used on Les over at Left Coast Rebel that got Chuck banned?
Hey numbers guy. We all have strengths and weaknesses in our knowledge base. Some stuff we remember. Some stuff we forget. Some stuff we never even knew. So, I'll tell you what here, while I'm examining the Battle of Changde, you can do a little research on the Siege of Jaffa in which the forces of Napolean slaughtered thousands and we'll call it a day.
Chakam, I could be wrong but it sounded like you were channeling Janeane Garofalo (perhaps the worst SNL regular of all times) there. And, yes, it majorly scared me. LOL
Will: Thank you, wd, for clarifying.
You lie Will. My "clarification" was not that I agree with you completely (or at all). And what's this about "thousands" of people being killed by drones? Where does that guesstimate come from?
btw, you said previously that you doubted that any (or few) innocents were killed in Afghanistan because our strikes were targeted. Now you've changed your mind? That must mean you think it's A-OK for the US to kill innocent muslims.
http://www.examiner.com/alameda-county-progressive-in-san-francisco/obama-orders-more-drone-attacks-since-taking-office-than-bush-did-3-years............Pay special attention to the part that talks about the breach of international law that these attacks represent. They're illegal, wd. That makes Mr. Obama a war criminal.
And at least quote me accurately. Yes, I said that the drones are accurate but I also pointed out how the terrorists like to blend into the civilian population and that that was a possible reason for the civilian deaths (and a lot more of a plausible explanation than Bush/Obama targeting civilians).
another source http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/may2010/dron-m07.shtml According to this one, 700 civilian deaths in 2009 alone and 247 more in the first 4 months of 2010.
Will: They're illegal, wd. That makes Mr. Obama a war criminal.
So, you think Obama is a war criminal but not bush?! Moderate extremism in action, folks.
Will: Pay special attention to the part that talks about the breach of international law that these attacks represent. They're illegal, wd. That makes Mr. Obama a war criminal.
Apparently you didn't pay "special attention", as the article doesn't say what you seem to think it does. It says, "United Nations human rights investigator Philip Alston has questioned the legality of the approach [warning] of POSSIBLE violations of international law".
Title 18 of the United States Code/Part I/Chapter 118 under the heading War Crimes/"Inapplicability of certain provisions with respect to collateral damage or incident of lawful attack" says as long as the attack is lawful that collateral damage (accidential killing of innocents) is NOT a war crime. So, providing that the drone strikes in Pakistan are lawful (which, seeing as they being conducted with the permission of the Pakastani government, and it appears as though they are)... President Obama is NOT guilty of "war crimes".
That said, I srongly disagree with and oppose Obama's expanded use of drones.
I don't think that EITHER one of them are war criminals, wd. This is your frigging freak show and I'm just looking for some consistency.
And, again, a country cannot give permission to another country to kill its citizens, especially when the VAST majority of the citizens of that country protest vociferously. But, like I said before, I still don't think that it rises to the level of a war crime.
Post a Comment