Saturday, August 4, 2012

Miscellaneous 134

1) To all of those folks who say that the Bush administration failed to connect the dots and prevent 9/11 (and I'm not necessarily saying that I disagree with them, mind you), I really have to ask them. Is it also not possible that the Obama administration failed to connect the dots and prevent the Fort Hood massacre at the hands of that Major Hassan (the fact that there were a fair number of tea leaves there as well, begging to be read, etc.)?............2) Here's a fact that just totally blew me away. The British invasion act with the most appearances on the "Ed Sullivan Show" wasn't the Beatles, or the Stones, or the Animals, or Herman's Hermits. The British invasion act with the most appearances on the "Ed Sullivan Show" was the Dave Clark Five. Yeah, that's right, folks. Those sons of bitches made a grand total of 18 appearances and pretty much blew the roof off the joint every time (the loudest and rowdiest of the British bands at that time save for possibly The Who). It's kind of too bad that we don't seem to remember them all that much (they eventually did make the Rock and Roll hall of Fame in 2008).............3) My opinion of George W. Bush and the second Iraq War is EXACTLY THE SAME as that of President Obama and John Kerry. a) It was a mistake for the dude to invade Iraq. b) The Iraq War was hugely mismanaged. And c) the whole thing falls considerably short of a war crime. If I'm an apologist for George W. Bush, it seems that I'm in pretty damned distinguished company.

9 comments:

d nova said...

what i recall on the ft hood case is that hassan's fellow shrinks discussed his odd behavior among themselves but never reported it till after he went postal.

you may agree with obama and kerry, but bush's invasion of iraq meets the definition of aggression, the #1 war crime.

dmarks said...

Not in the least, D nova. Saddam Hussein violated to cease fire in so many ways, including aggression against innocent Americans. It is no aggression (or war crime) to fight back against those that attack you.

Bush's legal and justifed retaliation against Saddam's terrorist regime does not meet the definition of 'aggression' at all.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

The cease fire was under the UN's purview. It was for them to decide what to do if it was violated. The US was not authorized under the UN cease fire resolution to act, and it sure as hell wasn't authorized to act against the UN's wishes.

bush made his case to the UN and the UN rejected it. The IAEA weapons inspectors on the ground at the time reported they needed a little more time to complete their inspections, but were finding no WMD. Containment worked.

bush lied about WMD. "Fighting back" was the UN's decision. bush violated international law when he ordered the illegal invasion of Iraq. This qualifies as a war crime.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

You can use whatever criteria that you want, wd. You just have to be consistent about it. LBJ engaged in an act of aggression against the Vietnamese and then used some sketchy report about a couple of errant torpedoes to mount a 600,000 man land invasion against a country that did absolutely nothing to us, ALL WITHOUT A U.N. RESOLUTION. If you're going to call Bush a war criminal, then you're going to have to call LBJ one, too. Jerry, to his credit, WAS consistent (hell, even that lunatic numbers guy was).

d nova said...

did somebody say LBJ wasn't a war criminal? but unsure what you mean by 600k man invasion. troop level grew gradually from <1000 in 1959-60 to >20k in '64 to almost 200k near end of '65 to a peak of 536k in '68. since we were welcomed in by south vietnam govt, it wasn't what's normally meant by 'invasion'. more like deployment. but aggression? hell, yes! because we attacked the north.

[i assume jerry and lunatic numbers guy refer to earlier posts.]

dmarks said...

WD said: "The cease fire was under the UN's purview. It was for them to decide what to do if it was violated."

The US decided, under the guideliness of existing UN regulations. The UN agreed with the US interpretation. The UN did not object.

"The IAEA weapons inspectors on the ground at the time reported they needed a little more time to complete their inspections, but were finding no WMD. Containment worked."

Containment failed. Plenty of WMD were found after. I showed proof to WD, and he read the detailed report, and lied and said that the chemical weapon stockpiles were "bullets".

"Bush lied about WMD."

Checking the historic record, Bush told the truth, and you are lying.

"Fighting back" was the UN's decision."

It is the right of a country being attacked to fight back.

"bush violated international law when he ordered the illegal invasion of Iraq. This qualifies as a war crime."

1) He did not violate international law. The UN and ICC agree.

2) The retaliation was legal. The UN and ICC agree.

3) Since neither of your claims is true, the "war crime" thing is a hollow insult. And totally uninformed.

d nova said...

dmarks, the internet gives you an opportunity to educate yourself. anybody can make a mistake, but why do you want to make yourself look ridiculous by revealing so much ignorance?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

d nova, I would just add that South Vietnam was a country that the U.S. just essentially created out of thin air.

dmarks said...

D nova: I was referring to the facts. You earlier proved you were uninformed on this issue by referring to imaginary war crimes. Do some research before you make a fool of yourself... again.

I refuse to lie about matters just to put those with an irrational hatred of Bush at ease.