Saturday, March 14, 2009
Piper Gory
To all the people who want to charge George Bush as a war-criminal, I simply say, be my guest, knock yourself out at it, etc.. Hell, what the hell do I care? I don't exactly have fond memories of the last eight years, either. In fact, it might actually be a welcome sight to see him have to do a little "explaining" - and, yes, do it in a format where HIS flunkies can't control the tempo, etc............................................................The only thing I ask is that you maybe take a little bit of a breather before you decide to go head first into it. This, I'm saying, in that you really and absolutely might be opening up a Pandora's Box here. First of all, not only do you have the Bush administration to deal with. You also have Tony Blair and British intelligence folks. They were as strong an advocate for going to war as the Bushies were (and continued to be even after all these charges of deception started to erupt). Are we going to put Tony Blair on trial, too?...............................................................And, yes, folks, what about leaders from history? Are we going to start to put them under the microscope, too? For instance, what about Roosevelt (the needless and gratuitous fire-bombing of Tokyo) and Churchill (the needless and gratuitous fire-bombing of Dresden)? Are we going to posthumously put THEM on trial? And what about Truman? There are a lot of people out there (most on the left, by the way) who think that, by incinerating Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he was a war-criminal, too. Is it also time for him to face the music? I'm just asking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Yo shiite fur brains tony blair doesn't answer to the united states courts bush should,
Damn you are one fucking STUPID SON OF A BITCH aren't ya
Er Willy Truman is dead shiite fer brains.
Only a fucking STUpID SON OF A BITCH would bother to try people for war crimes that are dead when theres plenty of live war criminals.
And they are all REICH WINGERS ASSWIPE.
Damn you really are shit slurping dumb son
You can try people posthumously, Clif. And you can also admit that these Democratic luminaries of yours weren't perfect, either. P.S. Your inarticulate nature is breath-taking, Clif.
I'll bet a lot of those war-mongers from the Johnson administration are probably still alive, Cliffy.
Will,
Don't you just love it when these liberals drop by?
Can't you feel the love, peace and tolerance?
Bless you Clif. You are an outstanding example of your kind.
Love and peace to you as well...
I'm just basically playing devil's advocate here, Volt. They always make it sound like the Democrats and liberals are great and the right is pure evil. I'm just trying to show them that once in fact you peel that onion, there's more than enough blame to go around. I mean, seriously, can you imagine if Ike had incinerated massive nonmilitary targets in Tokyo? They'd be blowing a gasket big time.
Vile is vile regardless of party affiliation.
Good is good regardless of party affiliation.
War crimes, I think, has always been a way to further punish those on the loosing side. The fact of the matter is, even if by some twist of the universe, GWB was put on trial, he would be exonerated.
That would mean nothing to those yelling for crucifixion, other then the trial was corrupt.
Roosevelt was commander in chief. He ordered it (the fire-bombing of Tokyo) 1) to be punitive and 2) to impress the Russians - the same reasons that Churchill had for fire-bombing Dresden. They both could be considered war-crimes but aren't - 1) because WE won and 2) because they're our heroes. Maybe it's time we took our blinders off.
Roosevelt was commander in chief. He ordered it (the fire-bombing of Tokyo)
Gen Douglas MacArthur would have to have approved it as CINC of the Pacific Theater in WW2
the same reasons that Churchill had for fire-bombing Dresden.
Which Gen Dwight D Eisenhower would have had to approve as CINC in the European theater.
Oops will, you just convicted your very own man crush president
Like I said, Clif, it opens up a pandora's box. Though, like Truman said, the buck stops with the president.
You don't think that Ike was a great president, Clif? Obama does. And so do historians, the last grouping of 64 (the bulk of who are liberal) placing him at #8.
Ike was OK as a president he allowed the Dulles brothers to screw up our foreign policy some places for decades,
but YOUR logic makes him a war criminal
I never agreed with your twisted logic
just pointed out how plays out will
Japan and German opened theater wide attacks on civilian population centers before the US & British bomber responses and Churchill was not in control of the bombers Willy piss boy.
As I remember my history - the govt. didn't lie us into a war with Germany and Japan both nations formally declared war on us, and after we were attacked we declared formal war against them.
Also both Germany and Japan conducted attacks against civilian population centers BEFORE we responded in the language the understood and was required.
Will your argument is not honest or sincere.
To "We burned Tokyo", 2 wrongs/war-crimes don't make a right. We're supposed to be better that our enemy, remember? We don't torture, etc..
I've admitted to being a devil's advocate here, 1138. As for Bush lying, clearly, he may have. I just think it would be hard to prove. And since Obama himself doesn't seem to have the stomach for it....
Clif, I never, EVER, defended the installation of the Shah. That was clearly a mistake by the Eisenhower administration. And in retrospect, blocking the Vietnam elections was also a mistake. I've also said that repeatedly. My only point is that given the time-frame it was understandable; Eisenhower inheriting Truman's containment policy (which face it, Clif, contained BILLIONS in aid to the French to fight in Vietnam), the domino theory (which, believe it or not, did make sense back then, given the shaky governments of that region), etc.. I could be wrong, but I can't imagine another politician of that era making a different decision. And, Clif, do you really think that Ho would have willingly given up power once he attained it (no matter how Democratically he may have initially garnered it)?
given the time-frame it was understandable;
No it was NOT you inbred cretin.
Eisenhower KNEW that insurgencies against foreign power are very hard to stop because he watched the Germans suffer at the hands of the French, Belgium and dutch resistance, but especially at the hands of Tito's people in Yugoslavian,
If Ike had told the Dulles brothers to piss up a rope and allow elections NO body in America would have said SHIT cause we were just getting untangled OUT of the Korean War and NOBODY but the hard right extremists wanted to get embroiled in another endless war which couldn't be won, which was exactly what Vietnam was from the beginning.
In fact shiite fur brains IF you actually checked historical sources from the time, the question most often asked is
Vietnam another Korea?
The pentagon papers made abundantly clear the powers that be in the late 50's were working hard to HIDE their deceit in Vietnam from public view which is why they used the CIA and associated forces instead of the normal military route to funnel aid to the government they set up.
Damn your either the world worst LIAR to dumbest fuck on the planet will.
Wanna try spinnin more LIES with no basis in fact?
You idiot
BTW shiite fior brains the domino theory was bull crap when pushed the first time,
The Indochinese wars were largely indigenous or nationalist in nature, and the Dulles brothers needed a way to get around that truth so they INVENTED the theory just like they created SEATO so they could justify their criminal behavior.
Put simply, the theory was used as a propaganda scare tactic to try to justify unwarranted intervention policies in Vietnam, by individuals who needed a reason to go back into Asia right after the Korean war was over and the US public was largely against such a move.
The domino theory never was connected to reality at all .... except for propagandists and their lackeys.
Want proof, after we left Vietnam to ONLY country to fall was the one Nixon destabilized, Camobdia which the Vietnamese went in and over threw the Khmer Rouge not any anti-communists at all (mostly because the Vietnamese were more closely allied with the soviets and Cambodians with the Chinese, which destroys the myth of one version of communism taking over the entire planet ......
Damn you are real good at reciting the propaganda of the right wing from the time but WEAK on the real facts as usual son.
Yes, Clif, Ike did know. That's why he refused to help the French when they asked us to (back when they were pinned down in Dien Bien Phu). That's why he refused to help the British and French at Suez. And, yes, it would have been a blot to have another country go communist, Clif. Kennedy ran to right of Nixon (they tried to out-tough each other as anti-Communists) in 1960, for Christ! Look, bro, you want to post here, fine. But if you continue with these personal attacks, it's just not going to work. Comprehend? And, again, I ask you, how many more elections do you think that the dastardly Ho would have allowed?
Fuck off asshole keep using MY name and it gets worse.
"...which destroys the myth of one version of communism taking over the entire planet ......"
Yeah, because everyone knows it's OK as long as it's more than ONE version that takes over the planet...
Are you threatening Will Cliffy?
How much worse of an excuse for a human being could you possibly get?
Yeah, "keep using my name". What's that all about? It's like he's admitting that he's Cliffy but doesn't want me to call him Cliffy. I don't know, methinks that Cliffy isn't well, Volt.
Yes, the Cambodians were backed by China and the Vietnamese by the Soviets. That's supposed to make me feel better? LOL I mean, that's like comparing Al Capone to Meir Lansky, for Christ!
Post a Comment