Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > US admits War Guilt      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 26
US admits War GuiltPage 2 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
Doesn't manslaughter - criminally negligent homicide cover that one...say a million or so counts? You don't necessarily have to form intent to kill if through your action or inaction you cause the deaths of others, especially in a criminal conspiracy...

All you would need is a jurist with some cojones...but in North America those seem to be in short supply.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 27
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 2:41:48 PM

Doesn't manslaughter - criminally negligent homicide cover that one...say a million or so counts? You don't necessarily have to form intent to kill if through your action or inaction you cause the deaths of others, especially in a criminal conspiracy...

Yeah... but that still leaves the "competency" issue... You usually have to be able to at least conceptualize that as a possible outcome of your actions... I could see him buying into the whole "but we have smart bombs, there won't be any innocent casualties, only bad guys... because we have smart bombs" story hook, line and sinker...

All you would need is a jurist with some cojones...but in North America those seem to be in short supply.

Aye... Alas and alack...
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 28
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 6:05:23 PM

A red herring of cetacean proportions... "This guy" didn't start an illegal war over his claims, the others did...
There is a HUGE difference in law between making false claims and acting on false claims..

Are you inferring that Al Gore would make false claims??....
And isn’t inciting a riot still a crime even if one doesn’t act?
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 29
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 7:10:49 PM
Are you inferring that Al Gore would make false claims??...

No... but apparently you are... Read again...

"This guy" didn't start an illegal war over his claims, the others did...

This is a complete sentence... Now show me where it says Al Gore made a false claim... Though I did notice that you had to misquote my statement by removing the carriage-return that separated two different sentences expressing two different ideas to make your point... I guess we can add dishonesty to the red herrings, hmmm...?

It's rather telling when one has to use dishonest misquotes in order to scrape even the smallest semblance of a "gotcha" together...

And isn’t inciting a riot still a crime even if one doesn’t act?

Who incited a riot...? And even if someone did, when did "incitement" become a war crime...?
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 30
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 7:48:54 PM
Punctuation comments and unfounded accusations of dishonesty aside......

Now show me where it says Al Gore made a false claim

So you are saying that Al Gore's 1992 claims of the Iraq WMD threat were true then?


Who incited a riot...? And even if someone did, when did "incitement" become a war crime...?

Show me where I said incitement was a war crime.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 31
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 8:38:16 PM
So you are saying that Al Gore's 1992 claims of the Iraq WMD threat were true then?

I haven't passed any judgement on it... I think you may be proceeding from a false assumption... That I give a rat's ass about Al Gore... What he may or may not have believed in 1992, or ever, is irrelevant he didn't invade anybody over it...

Now... Just exactly what does all of this have to do with Gates' admission that the pretext was invalid...?

Show me where I said incitement was a war crime.

War crimes is the topic of the thread... Are you admitting to hijacking the thread...?
 6pack2go
Joined: 8/30/2010
Msg: 32
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 11:37:10 PM




Returning troll - removed


 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 33
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/3/2010 4:38:34 AM

Why the exclusion of the democrats who voted for it as well ?

The "buck stops" with the Executive Branch... I'm not aware of too many Dems serving in the Executive Branch during the Bush admin...

You would have to include Mr. Blair and a few other dignitaries as well.

Blair and others don't fall under US jurisdiction... America shouldn't have to police the world you know...

OH NO ! your not suggesting yet another CZAR are you

What do "czars" have to do with amendments to the US Code...?

"Sigh" Yet another "Blame America"

If the shoe fits...
 itechman63
Joined: 7/7/2005
Msg: 34
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/3/2010 9:38:28 AM

"Sigh" Yet another "Blame America"


No one (nation) is pure and without blame for wrongdoing.

Iraq did turn out to be an unjust war. Someday there may be benefits to all involved although not necessarily worth the cost in life and the consequences of it's disastrous effect on the national deficit. And while there were policy makers involved in the decison that were sincere, the decision to go to this war was decided by those who felt the benefits of nation building a Democracy in the ME was worth the cost and more nefariously by those with financial stakes in the conflict.

There is blame to go around but I don't think the America that should note it's blame is the nation in general, but I believe the blame goes on all of US that blindly accepted at face value all of the propaganda fed to us without holding our most favorite leaders to task for all that they said.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 35
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/3/2010 10:49:04 AM

I haven't passed any judgement on it... I think you may be proceeding from a false assumption... That I give a rat's ass about Al Gore... What he may or may not have believed in 1992, or ever, is irrelevant he didn't invade anybody over it...

Now... Just exactly what does all of this have to do with Gates' admission that the pretext was invalid...?


But you specifically said in msg 13 in answer to the question of who should be procecuted…

And perhaps those individuals responsible for promulgating the false information which was used to justify the action would be good people to start with.

I’ve posted clear video evidence that shows both Al Gore (1992) and Bill Clinton (1998) promulgating the exact same “false” information or “premise” that secretary Gates comments are referring to.

Now you want to claim it’s irrelevant. There seems to be some duplicity in your posts.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 36
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/3/2010 1:39:40 PM
Now you want to claim it’s irrelevant. There seems to be some duplicity in your posts.

No the duplicity exists in your attempt to hijack the thread... It isn't my fault you fail to understand how to derive the meaning of words from usage and context... "promulgating" in the sentence posted clearly means "to put into action or force"... logic dictates it to be so, as you cannot prosecute individuals for war crimes simply for speaking about the information ("make known" or "proclaim", the other meanings of promulgate, neither of which logically fit the context)...

Now... if you wish to continue to try and hijack the thread, we can let the mods address the problem... or you can actually address the topic... your choice...
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 37
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/3/2010 8:28:21 PM
After rethinking this, perhaps it isn't an intentional hijacking.... Perhaps there's something bigger going on here...



the exact same “false” information or “premise” that secretary Gates comments are referring to

Clearly, you are not distinguishing the difference between "words" and "deeds"... You seem to believe that the Bush admin's guilt derives from having talked about WMD's which did not exist at the time they spoke of them... I am not sure where you might come to this conclusion... Talking about wmd's, no matter how false your claims, is not a crime and it certainly isn't a war crime... The crime lies in the deed of engaging in an act of international aggression against a sovereign nation under the pretext or premise of those false claims...

Understanding this requires something more than just the ability to make "either-or" distinctions... Perhaps the distinction between "words" and "deeds" is creating too much complexity because it is no longer just a "black-white"/"either-or"/"fer us-agin us" issue which can be described by opposite ends of a one-dimensional "line"... The "words-deeds" distinction adds a second dimension to the question which may be too abstract... I will attempt to explain it...

Shrub and the other members of his criminal gang could have talked about wmd's morning, noon and night, 7 days a week if they wanted to (oh wait, they did...) and not once would this have been a crime, much less a war crime... It would still have been a lie but a lie is generally not a crime... An act of international aggression against a sovereign nation based on those lies is a crime... Therein lies the distinction which leads your point to be irrelevant and hi-jacking the topic...

I hope this helps clear it up...
 Ezzee
Joined: 7/26/2004
Msg: 38
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/3/2010 9:01:29 PM
So the new leaders of the government are basically saying that going into Iraq was done so on a premise that proved to be incorrect? So what, exactly, is your point? This sounds about as newsworthy or discussion worthy as if the current leaders of the German government were to come out and say that the holocaust was done on a premise that seemingly proved to be incorrect. I'm sure even someday, if they haven't already, the Canadian Government will admit that their treatment of Ukrainian-Canadians during WWI which included disenfranchisement, restrictions on freedom of speech and movement, deportation and confiscation of wealth and property was done so on a premise that was apparently incorrect.

It happens all the time when a government changes leadership. If people think this is some sort of huge news, I'm sure that they are overwhelmed when paint dries.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 39
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/3/2010 9:45:15 PM
If you are about to declare war on a country that you haven't even done a National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) on, it's not a good sign.

They are done all the time, and for far less important reasons.

That one wasn't prepared (until a Congressman asked for one) , and then the one produced (in a great rush, improperly, and not vetted as per regulations) , it's a huge indicator that "the fix is in" on the rush to war.


The documents suggest that the public relations push for war came before the intelligence analysis, which then conformed to public positions taken by Pentagon and White House officials. For example, a July 2002 draft of the "White Paper" ultimately issued by the CIA in October 2002 actually pre-dated the National Intelligence Estimate that the paper purportedly summarized, but which Congress did not insist on until September 2002.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0808/S00297.htm


Oops...


Other criticism included poor information sharing among intelligence agencies, substandard management, and a stepped-up time frame due to the threat of war. President George W. Bush asked Congress in mid-September 2002 to pass a resolution granting the U.S. broad authority to use military action against Iraq. But no NIE existed on the status of Iraq’s WMD program and much uncertainty surrounded the claims being made by Bush administration officials regarding the threat posed by Iraq’s WMD.

In requesting the NIE on “an immediate basis,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) wrote to the director of central intelligence that she “deeply believe[d] that such an estimate is vital to congressional decision-making, and most specifically, [to] any resolution which may come before the Senate.”

Not all agencies involved concurred with the NIE’s conclusions. Two footnotes have come to public attention. In one, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissented from the intelligence community’s majority view that Baghdad was reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program, saying there was not enough evidence to reach that conclusion. In particular, it raised doubts about whether a large shipment of aluminum tubes sought by Iraq was intended for centrifuges to enrich nuclear fuel, as asserted by other agencies. In another footnote, the U.S. Air Force’s director for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance questioned whether the unmanned aerial vehicles being developed by Iraq were “probably” intended to deliver biological agents. Instead, he said that would be an unlikely mission for such aircraft.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7758/national_intelligence_estimates.html#p6


There's your smoking gun, hiding under a faux mushroom cloud.


Unmanned aircraft

Powell showed video of an Iraqi F-1 Mirage jet spraying "simulated anthrax." He said four such spray tanks were unaccounted for, and Iraq was building small unmanned aircraft "well suited for dispensing chemical and biological weapons."

According to U.N. inspectors' reports, the video predated the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when the Mirage was said to have been destroyed, and three of the four spray tanks were destroyed in the 1990s.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0811-09.htm


The UN knew that aircraft had been destroyed, as part of it's involvement with the disarming of Iraq's WMD programs - and the US government knew it as well.

The fact that this war was launched into the face of a blinding sandstorm was an omen of what was about to occur.

Those war hawks that had dreamed of a Paris 1944 type reception were as delusional as their policies were, that was never in the cards. These were not Americans or Europeans, nor secular ones, and they weren't going to behave like them.

Those at the top had never even realized what type of religious quagmire awaited them, and the divisions that were about to be unleashed were like a claymore mine exploding into the society they were occupying.

Their optimism knew no bounds, however.


TOP SECRET POLO STEP
Iraq War Plan Assumed Only 5,000 U.S. Troops Still There by December 2006
CentCom PowerPoint Slides Briefed to White House and Rumsfeld in 2002, Obtained by National Security Archive through Freedom of Information Act
PowerPoints Reflect Internal Debates Over Size and Timing of Invasion Force
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 214
Edited by Joyce Battle and Thomas Blanton
Editorial Assistance by Malcolm Byrne, John Prados, and Justin Snyder

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/index.htm


And the facts were there ...


Post-Saddam Iraq:
The War Game
"Desert Crossing" 1999 Assumed
400,000 Troops and Still a Mess
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 207
Introduced by Roger Strother
Posted - November 4, 2006
For more information contact:
John Prados - 301/565-0564 or Roger Strother - 202/994-7000

Washington D.C., November 4, 2006 - In late April 1999, the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), led by Marine General Anthony Zinni (ret.), conducted a series of war games known as Desert Crossing in order to assess potential outcomes of an invasion of Iraq aimed at unseating Saddam Hussein. The documents posted here today covered the initial pre-war game planning phase from April-May 1999 through the detailed after-action reporting of June and July 1999.

The Desert Crossing war games, which amounted to a feasibility study for part of the main war plan for Iraq -- OPLAN 1003-98 -- tested "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios of a post-war, post-Saddam, Iraq. The After Action Report presented its recommendations for further planning regarding regime change in Iraq and was an interagency production assisted by the departments of defense and state, as well as the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency, among others.

The results of Desert Crossing, however, drew pessimistic conclusions regarding the immediate possible outcomes of such action. Some of these conclusions are interestingly similar to the events which actually occurred after Saddam was overthrown. (Note 1) The report forewarned that regime change may cause regional instability by opening the doors to "rival forces bidding for power" which, in turn, could cause societal "fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines" and antagonize "aggressive neighbors." Further, the report illuminated worries that secure borders and a restoration of civil order may not be enough to stabilize Iraq if the replacement government were perceived as weak, subservient to outside powers, or out of touch with other regional governments. An exit strategy, the report said, would also be complicated by differing visions for a post-Saddam Iraq among those involved in the conflict.

The Desert Crossing report was similarly pessimistic when discussing the nature of a new Iraqi government. If the U.S. were to establish a transitional government, it would likely encounter difficulty, some groups discussed, from a "period of widespread bloodshed in which various factions seek to eliminate their enemies." The report stressed that the creation of a democratic government in Iraq was not feasible, but a new pluralistic Iraqi government which included nationalist leaders might be possible, suggesting that nationalist leaders were a stabilizing force. Moreover, the report suggested that the U.S. role be one in which it would assist Middle Eastern governments in creating the transitional government for Iraq.

General Zinni, who retired in 2000 shortly after the completion of Desert Crossing, brought the report to the attention of the public after the war. Even before the invasion, he had made his opposition to an imminent war widely known. In a major address at the Middle East Institute in October 2002, he disputed the view that war was either inevitable or desirable. On the question of establishing a new government to replace Saddam Hussein, he said, "God help us if we think this transition will occur easily." (Note 2)

Zinni disparaged the views of pro-war advocates who minimized the significance of Arab opinion: "I'm not sure which planet they live on, because it isn't the one I travel." In a Q&A after the speech, he declared that while it was necessary to deal with Saddam Hussein "eventually," "[t]hat could happen in many ways" short of war. "The question becomes how to sort out your priorities .... My personal view, and this is just personal, is that I think this isn't No. 1. It's maybe six or seven, and the affordability line may be drawn around five." (Note 3)

Zinni commented in depth publicly about Desert Crossing at UCLA in 2004 where he discussed the origins of the plan in the wake of the Desert Fox bombing campaign in 1998:

And it struck me then that we had a plan to defeat Saddam's army, but we didn't have a plan to rebuild Iraq. And so I asked the different agencies of government to come together to talk about reconstruction planning for Iraq. . . . I thought we ought to look at political reconstruction, economic reconstruction, security reconstruction, humanitarian need, services, and infrastructure development. We met in Washington, DC. We called the plan, and we gamed it out in the scenario, Desert Crossing. (Note 4)

Zinni noted the parallels to what eventually happened after the invasion as well as to the lack of interest elsewhere in the U.S. government for tackling the problems of reconstruction:

The first meeting surfaced all the problems that have exactly happened now. This was 1999. And when I took it back and looked at it, I said, we need a plan. Not all of this is a military responsibility. I went back to State Department, to the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, Department of Commerce and others and said, all right, how about you guys taking part of the plan. We need a plan in addition to the war plan for the reconstruction. Not interested. Would not look at it. (Note 5)

So the General decided to take action himself -- "because I was convinced nobody in Washington was going to plan for it, and we, the military, would get stuck with it."

Zinni claimed that his report had been forgotten only a few years later, stating: "When it looked like we were going in [to Iraq], I called back down to CENTCOM and said, 'You need to dust off Desert Crossing.' They said, 'What's that? Never heard of it.' So in a matter of just a few years it was gone. The corporate memory. And in addition I was told, 'We've been told not to do any of the planning. It would all be done in the Pentagon.'" (Note 6)

The planning done at the Defense Department changed Zinni's original conception in some fundamental ways. For example, Zinni proposed a civilian occupation authority with offices in all eighteen Iraqi provinces, whereas the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was actually established only in Baghdad.

Even more significantly, the former CENTCOM commander noted that his plan had called for a force of 400,000 for the invasion -- 240,000 more than what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved. "We were concerned about the ability to get in there right away, to flood the towns and villages," USA Today quoted Zinni as saying in July 2003. "We knew the initial problem would be security." (Note 7)

Army General Thomas "Tommy" Franks adjusted the concept when he assumed command of CENTCOM upon Zinni's retirement. Yet even his initial version of OPLAN 1003-98 envisioned a need for 385,000 troops, according to the book, COBRA II, (Note 8) -- before Rumsfeld insisted that the number be sharply reduced.

 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm



the "U.S.-led coalition against Iraq," participated by providing troops, equipment, services, security, and special forces, with 248,000 soldiers from the United States, 45,000 British soldiers, 2,000 Australian soldiers and 194 Polish soldiers from Special Forces unit GROM sent to Kuwait for the invasion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#2003:_Invasion


If 400,000 troops were not going to easily pull it off, reducing that number was a criminal act of folly.

They knew.


former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.

“I tried to avoid this war,” Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”

Powell has become increasingly outspoken about the level of violence in Iraq, which he believes is in a state of civil war. “The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms,” he said. “It’s not going to be pretty to watch, but I don’t know any way to avoid it. It is happening now.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2042072.ece


They knew....


"Why We Didn't Remove Saddam"

George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft
Time (2 March 1998)

The end of effective Iraqi resistance came with a rapidity which surprised us all, and we were perhaps psychologically unprepared for the sudden transition from fighting to peacemaking. True to the guidelines we had established, when we had achieved our strategic objectives (ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding Saddam's threat to the region) we stopped the fighting. But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of "battleship Missouri" surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose.

We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

We discussed at length forcing Saddam himself to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan--just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border--and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The latter would have sent a disastrous signal. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives. Given those unpalatable choices, we allowed Saddam to avoid personal surrender and permitted him to send one of his generals. Perhaps we could have devised a system of selected punishment, such as air strikes on different military units, which would have proved a viable third option, but we had fulfilled our well-defined mission; Safwan was waiting.

As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had. We had come to their assistance in their time of need, asked nothing for ourselves, and left again when the job was done. Despite some criticism of our conduct of the war, the Israelis too had their faith in us solidified. We had shown our ability--and willingness--to intervene in the Middle East in a decisive way when our interests were challenged. We had also crippled the military capability of one of their most bitter enemies in the region. Our new credibility (coupled with Yasser Arafat's need to redeem his image after backing the wrong side in the war) had a quick and substantial payoff in the form of a Middle East peace conference in Madrid.

The Gulf War had far greater significance to the emerging post-cold war world than simply reversing Iraqi aggression and restoring Kuwait. Its magnitude and significance impelled us from the outset to extend our strategic vision beyond the crisis to the kind of precedent we should lay down for the future. From an American foreign-policymaking perspective, we sought to respond in a manner which would win broad domestic support and which could be applied universally to other crises. In international terms, we tried to establish a model for the use of force. First and foremost was the principle that aggression cannot pay. If we dealt properly with Iraq, that should go a long way toward dissuading future would-be aggressors. We also believed that the U.S. should not go it alone, that a multilateral approach was better. This was, in part, a practical matter. Mounting an effective military counter to Iraq's invasion required the backing and bases of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.


Time removed that article from it's online records, but you can still find it with some research.

They knew.....


"Do you think the U.S. or U.N. forces should have moved into Baghdad?" the unseen questioner asks.

"No," Mr. Cheney replies, forcing even the most uninterested observes to sight up like a lightning bolt and take note. "If we would have gone into Baghdad, we would have been all alone. It would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq."


"Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government of Iraq, you can easily end up seeing parts of Iraq fly off."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/dick-cheney-calls-iraq-a-_b_60381.html


Oh, they knew.... no doubt about it.

As for a criminal trial happening, I doubt it ever will.

It does make me hope that Hell exists, however, and that those that triggered this war end up in it for all eternity like the people they condemned to it inside Iraqs borders - civilians and troops alike.

A guy can dream, right ?
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 40
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/3/2010 9:51:59 PM
And i'm sorry , "the buck stops at the executive level just doesnt cut it here , anymore than it did at Nuremberg

Well, I'm sure you can point me to the cases where they prosecuted every person who spoke an anti-semitic word or nodded approvingly at the exterminations...? You may be right in one regard though...

I was not thinking as harshly as Nuremberg but maybe, like they did... We should punish the majority of the political party functionaries of the Executive party (at Nuremberg it was Nazis, not communists, not socialists, not liberals, but Nazis... I guess that means Republicans in this case... I was trying to be generous)... And all the major industrialists/business owners who directly profited from it (they tried the likes of Krupp and IG Farben... I guess this time it would have to be Blackwater, the oil companies and such... Again, I was trying to by generous)... Oh, and there's also the likes of Fritzsche and Streicher (Radio 'talking heads' and media producers who supported the Nazi efforts to commit their war crimes... I guess that means the likes of Limbaugh and Murdoch in the Iraq case... But again, I was trying to be generous)...

Perhaps you're right on that one... I just think it might be a little expensive during these tough economic times... It doesn't sound very responsible to me, right now...

We should feel guilty about removing a dictator, .... Why?

Nobody said anything about "we" feeling guilty... I'm only talking about punishing the gang of criminal imperialist thugs that perpetrated the unlawful act of international aggression against a sovereign state...

Regardless of the outcome, the initial criminal act is not justified... That's a fundamental principle of western law and justice...

And after all... Isn't the law the law...? I mean, what part of "illegal" aren't you understanding...?
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 41
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/3/2010 10:33:40 PM
I couldn't help but notice no response to G.E.

What makes you think I care about G.E....? I did say "and such"... At least I'm pretty sure I did... Let me go back and check... Yep, I said "and such"... That excludes G.E. for any direct profit from the criminal acts of the Bush admin war criminals in what way...? You really should read these things more carefully, you seem to miss a lot...

Now, perhaps you can tell me how they benefited from the criminal invasion of Iraq (I can think of a couple myself, I just want to hear yours)...?

I say "We" because i'm an American , and when a president gets caught selling plots at Arlington , or his pants around his ankles , it reflects on me .

Right... All the more reason to want Bush and his gang of thugs arrested for their crimes against humanity... Do you really want to be "reflected on" by war criminals and thugs...?
 laxref41
Joined: 7/20/2008
Msg: 42
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/4/2010 6:58:58 AM
"But that’s not what secretary Gates said. The article quotes Gates with saying “that the premise on which we justified going to war turned out not to be valid,"."

that's why the U.N. charter... which the U.S. signed and therefore, according to our constitution became the law of the U.S... forbids the aggressive attack on a country even if you suspect they may be planning to attack you...
Innocent until guilty... that's the benchmark... Iraq was innocent... we thought they were guilty so we violated our own laws and attacked them... at what financial cost? at what cost of young Americans?
Maybe the tea partiers and the republicans can tally that up for us?
 Ezzee
Joined: 7/26/2004
Msg: 43
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/4/2010 7:34:09 AM

that's why the U.N. charter... which the U.S. signed and therefore, according to our constitution became the law of the U.S... forbids the aggressive attack on a country even if you suspect they may be planning to attack you...
Innocent until guilty... that's the benchmark... Iraq was innocent... we thought they were guilty so we violated our own laws and attacked them... at what financial cost? at what cost of young Americans?
Maybe the tea partiers and the republicans can tally that up for us?


That's the part that does trip a lot of people up. In the case of Iraq, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 that found them in breach of many agreements and resolutions of armament that constituted a threat to peace and security and brought back up Resolution 678 which authorized the use of force. So arguably, the UN Security Council authorized the use of force against Iraq.
 SaharaM
Joined: 4/9/2009
Msg: 44
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/4/2010 7:39:28 AM
I have been against this war from day one. That said:



<div class='quote'>Isn't it now clear, based on the gov't's own admission, that we should be prosecuting the perpetrators for war crimes just as others are for such deeds...?
No, that is not clear.

Have you looked at the elements that make up a "war crime?" What are they? If you have taken the time to legitimately research it, that would be interesting for you to post.



<div class='quote'>And what of all the innocent young American lives tragically cut short, the young American men left permanently scarred and disfigured by this now admitted act...? Are they not owed recompense for having sacrificed so much through their acts of good faith and patriotism in the name of an admitted fabrication...? No, they are not. Like it or not, that is not the premise of the US military.



<div class='quote'>Is this waste how we really view the value of the American soldier...? This is an intellectually dishonest question.



<div class='quote'>"Sigh" Yet another "Blame America" , by an administration that continues the previous administrations policies , (which they voted for)
Talk about having your cake and eating it too !! "This "blame america" crap is a ridiculous red herring. Admitting one's own error isn't about "blame." "Blame America" is an easy token answer to be thrown out when one doesn't understand the question, or when one wants to avoid the question yet wants to appear to be participating in the discussion.

Sometimes I wonder about the lives of the "Blame America" crew... do they take responsibility for their own actions or do they apply the same logic to every day life?
 dmotz
Joined: 11/19/2008
Msg: 45
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/4/2010 10:43:48 AM

I was not thinking as harshly as Nuremberg but maybe, like they did... We should punish the majority of the political party functionaries of the Executive party (at Nuremberg it was Nazis, not communists, not socialists, not liberals, but Nazis... I guess that means Republicans in this case... I was trying to be generous)


You also said the "Buck stops at the executive branch"

The Buck stops with the Congress. Congress controls the purse string Munjoe..Not the President.
The Iraq war was wrong. But to put ALL the blame on Bush is just stupid. Clinton, Gore, FBI,CIA and every other intelligence agency had the same intell.

Your looking for someone to blame...Look at every member of congress who voted for war...look at the people WHO FINANCED IT!
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 46
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/4/2010 12:18:57 PM
You also said the "Buck stops at the executive branch"

The Executive branch is the one which ultimately "orders" the troops to war through the executive powers granted... This is also the philosophy that has been practiced in these matters...


The Buck stops with the Congress.

Congress votes approval or disapproval of the Executive's request to send troops to war but the order lies with the Executive... It can be argued that they bear equal responsibility but, having been deceived by the Executive one could reasonably mitigate their responsibility (though the question of "due diligence" may arise)... I'm not aware of a case where an entire elected parliament/congress/etc. was charged for war crimes, typically it is the leaders/direct perpetrators who face the penalties (see Serbia for the most recent example)...

In the end, the power still rested with the Executive to admit their lie and say "You know what, we kind of made this up and it would be wrong to follow through, mea culpa"...

You may desire that all who voted (even the citizenry who voted for them knowing they intended war, I suppose) be held responsible... I don't see it as being in any way practical, no matter the will to do so... No, I suspect this objection is more rhetorical trickery to deflect guilt away from those who the poster supports... Kind of like the way so many Serbians deny the war guilt of their prefered leaders...

No, that is not clear.

Have you looked at the elements that make up a "war crime?" What are they? If you have taken the time to legitimately research it, that would be interesting for you to post.

If one examines it from the perspective of "what exactly is the definition of a war crime" then it is not crystal clear... The definition of the term is still rather ambiguous... Some things are almost universally considered so, others not... Even the issue of mass murder/genocide is still debated (look at how many deny the criminality of Karadzic for example)...

But, history has established that the initiation of an aggressive war without sufficient cause under UN/international treaty is itself a war crime... The term used is "Crimes against Peace" (war of aggression)... The German, Japanese and Italian leadership were all charged with some variation of this... These charges have been leveled several times over history (including against al Qaeda), some have been prosecuted, some haven't but the precedence is there...

It may not be crystal clear but it is clear enough considering precedence...

No, they are not. Like it or not, that is not the premise of the US military.

I am not referring to monetary reimbursment... I am referring to acknowledgement of the needlessness and criminality of the cause for which they were asked to perform their duty... Recognition that they made the sacrifice when it wasn't properly required of them... An even greater sacrifice than if the US had been under direct attack by Iraq...

This is an intellectually dishonest question.

No it isn't... because once again, an entire generation has made this sacrifice, believing they were doing their duty, when, in reality, the purpose was other than the "defense of the nation/American way of life" many were led to believe it was... America's soldiers should not be sacrificed for personal goals and ambitions but rather, the real interests of the American people, interests which were not threatened by Iraq...

Gang of thugs , I'll just assume you mean those that VOTED for it as well.
(my original point)

You would be assuming wrong... see above for why...

I'm reasonably certain the "Food for oil" program was BEFORE the invasion , and i must admit , i don't know the exact figure they just paid, or how much they profited, or the difference in between.

Yes, it was BEFORE... ergo it was NOT DUE to the unlawful act of aggression and doesn't meet the criteria... Now if you can find an example of "because of" then you will have a point with this beyond simply trying to "spread the blame around" to make your favoured boys SEEM less guilty...
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 47
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/4/2010 3:45:08 PM

The Buck stops with the Congress. Congress controls the purse string Munjoe..Not the President.
The Iraq war was wrong. But to put ALL the blame on Bush is just stupid. Clinton, Gore, FBI,CIA and every other intelligence agency had the same intell.


That responsibility to decide to authorize the path towards war depends on how many people get access to the "true picture" of the rationale behind the decision.

When you have an NIE that's written up as a "slam dunk" justification, and that one's released to the public, then that may be a good reason.

Unless another "top secret" one exists, that's far less sure....

And that's exactly what occurred, which means that you have two conflicting versions of the same reality, written by the same people, but to a different level of certainty.

Why ?


Criticism of the 2003 NIE
Josh Marshall, observed October 29, 2003, in The Hill, that the NIE was only put together when the policy was being sold, not when it was being put together. So the administration could not have been misled or ill-served by it because it was never used to formulate policy. The administration only used it to sell the policy to a skeptical Congress.

"We know that the Bush administration specifically resisted calling for an NIE until very late in the game because it didn't want the results and findings getting in the way of the policy the administration had already decided on. The reason an NIE was finally pulled together is that Senate Democrats wanted some sense of what the evidence was for all the White House's claims about Iraqi WMD and ties to international terrorism."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Intelligence_Estimate


The wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time - based on lies told to justify it.

That's not how the system is supposed to work, and there was a deliberate reversal of normal policy that's clearly evident here.


Your looking for someone to blame...Look at every member of congress who voted for war...look at the people WHO FINANCED IT!:


A far more important question to ask is "Cui Bono", who benefits ?

It was financed by the American taxpayer, perhaps to the tune of a trillion dollars (still to be determined).

If the executive branch is full of people who have very direct past ties to "Big Oil" , and to significant players in the military-industrial corporate world ; do you really still believe they invaded the second largest collection of oil fields in the world simply by coincidence ?


I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.

- Alan Greenspan


The first meetings of the incoming administration shortly after they were elected were focused on going to war with Iraq, and looking at it's oilfields.


And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.

Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml


Tell me again about who was responsible for the decision to go to war, and for what reason ?

Months before 9/11, and it's a "done deal", all it takes is how to do it politically.

The American Congress ?


Who profits from the Iraq war? More than a quarter of senators and congressmen have invested at least $196 million of their own money in companies doing business with the Department of Defense (DoD) that profit from the death and destruction in Iraq.

According to the latest reports, 151 members of Congress invested close to a quarter-billion in companies that received defense contracts of at least $5 million in 2006. These companies got more than $275.6 billion from the government in 2006, or $755 million per day, according to FedSpending.org, a website of the watchdog group OMBWatch.

Congressmen gave themselves a loophole so they only have to report their assets in broad ranges. Thus, they can be off as much as 160 percent. (Try giving the IRS an estimate like that.) In 2004, the first full year after the present Iraq war began, Republican and Democratic lawmakers—both hawks and doves—invested between $74.9 million and $161.3 million in companies under contract with the DoD. In 2006 Democrats had at least $3.7 million invested in the defense sector alone, compared to the Republicans’ “only” $577,500. As the war raged on, so did the billions of profits—and personal investments by Congress members in war contractors, which increased 5 percent from 2004 to 2006.

Investments in these contractors yielded Congress members between $15.8 million and $62 million in personal income from 2004 through 2006, through dividends, capital gains, royalties and interest. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who are two of Congress’s wealthiest members, were among the lawmakers who garnered the most income from war contractors between 2004 and 2006: Sensenbrenner got at least $3.2 million and Kerry reaped at least $2.6 million.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $3,001,006 to $5,015,001
• Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $250,001 to $500,000
• Rep. Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Tex.) $162,074 to $162,074
• Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) $115,002 to $300,000
• Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) $115,002 to $300,000
• Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) $100,870 to $100,870
• Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) $65,646 to $65,646
• Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) $50,008 to $227,000
• Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) $50,001 to $100,000
• Rep. Stephen Ira Cohen (D-Tenn.) $45,003 to $150,000

http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/151-congressmen-profit-from-war/3283/


It's a bipartisan issue, to be sure, and one that speaks of a conflict of interest in the halls of the decision makers in Congress.

If you have enough legislators in the position of profiting directly from unending war, then one must question their ability to make that call fairly.

If one's executive and legislative branches are in the position to all gain financially directly from war, then it's inevitable.

The corruption of the process should be evident to all.


What does Lockheed Martin have to celebrate about Trent Lott?

Lots! In the past few years, the majority leader has helped bail out multi-billion dollar Lockheed Martin projects like the F-22 fighter, a $70 billion program that was almost stopped in its tracks last year by Representatives Jerry Lewis (R-CA) and Pennsylvania's own Jack Murtha; the C-130 transport plane, which is routinely added to the Pentagon budget in quantities far beyond what the Pentagon requests; and the Theater High Altitude Area Defense project, THAAD, for which the company has just received a $4 billion multi-year contract despite the fact that it has failed in six of its eight tests.

Weapons Makers Largesse Favors Republicans
The relationship between Lott and Lockheed Martin is not unique. The top four missile defense contractors -- Lockheed Martin, TRW, Boeing, and Raytheon -- have made $6 million in political contributions in the current election cycle. The four firms also spent $34 million in lobbying in 1997/98 alone, a figure that will no doubt be exceeded when the final numbers of 1999/2000 are tallied. Ever since the Republicans took control of Congress in January 1995, major weapons contractors have favored them over Democratic candidates by a 2 to 1 margin.

The weapons makers have good reason to reward the Republican party for its role in boosting weapons spending -- since the Republicans took the House in 1995, Congress has routinely added $5 to $10 billion per year to the Pentagon budget beyond what the Clinton Administration has requested in its annual budget submissions. As a result, the Pentagon budget will hit $310 billion next year, a Cold War level budget despite the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists and the so-called "rogue states" that the Pentagon worries about most -- Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, and Cuba -- taken together spend just one-eighteenth of what the United States spends on its military.

TRW and John Warner: Hail to the Chairman
Lockheed Martin isn't the only weapons contractor looking to solidify its connections with key Republicans this week. TRW -- which is facing charges of fraud for manipulating results of tests related to the National Missile Defense (NMD) program -- is throwing a luncheon for Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner at the Philadelphia Union Club at noon on July 31st. Warner has been a key supporter of the NMD program. He led the Republican charge in defeating an amendment sponsored by Senators****Durbin of Illinois and Paul Wellstone of Minnesota that would have required the Pentagon to conduct realistic tests of the NMD system before making a deployment decision.

George W. Bush has strong ties to Lockheed Martin from his service as Governor of Texas, where he tried to give the firm a contract to run the Texas welfare system before he had to relent in the face of public protests and an unfavorable regulatory ruling by the Clinton administration. Lockheed Martin VP Bruce Jackson is a finance chair of the Bush for President campaign, and was heard to brag at a conference last year that he would be in a position to "write the Republican platform" on defense if Bush gets the nomination (which he will, later this week).****Cheney, the man who presided over the U.S.-led victory over Saddam Hussein in the 1991 Gulf War, has spent the past few years running the oil services giant Halliburton, which ranked 18th on the Pentagon's top contractors list in FY 1999. Cheney's wife, Lynne, serves on Lockheed Martin's board, a service for which she receives $120,000 in compensation. That's small change for the Cheney family --****earned $26.7 million in wages, bonuses, and stock options last year -- but it raises serious questions of conflict of interest when the potential "second lady" is on the payroll of the nation's largest weapons maker.

The Bottom Line: Both Major Parties Have Been Bought Off
The answer to the weapons industry's hold on the Republican party is NOT to turn to the Democrats. Under the leadership of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic Party has been almost as pro-military as the Republicans, maintaining high military spending, throwing billions of dollars at missile defense, and reaping over $1.1 million in soft money from Bernard Schwartz of Loral Space and Communications in the most recent election cycle alone. The answer is to get special interest money out of politics by supporting full public financing of presidential and congressional races on the "clean money" model, where candidates can successfully run for office without taking any corporate contributions.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/lockheedgop.htm


So it should come as no surprise to anyone that the rush to war, in clear violation of international law (which only mandates a first strike only against a "real slam dunk" threat), was based on the lies that sprung from it's genesis - decided early in 2001, months before 9/11.

A very large number of those involved in that decision making process, as well as those that were in the position to authorize it, stood to gain financially, there's no longer any doubt about that issue.

A criminal act ? In my mind that's a slam dunk case.

It's also a rock that no one wants to overturn, as it will reveal a lot of people in power scurrying out from under it, trying to cover their faces. It woulld expose the reality no one wants to face. There's far more to be lost here, than gained, for the wealthy and the powerful.

That's why I don't think it will ever happen.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 48
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/4/2010 5:50:47 PM

It's also a rock that no one wants to overturn, as it will reveal a lot of people in power scurrying out from under it, trying to cover their faces. It woulld expose the reality no one wants to face. There's far more to be lost here, than gained, for the wealthy and the powerful.

That's why I don't think it will ever happen.

I can't disagree with you on that...

But I have to add... It's not just the rich and powerful who don't wish to overturn that rock... These people support the delusions and prejudices to which a large segment of the population are virtually addicted... Many define their very identities by these delusions and prejudices... The rich and powerful provide them with the "drug" (the symbols, the one-dimensional slogans and trite little homilies) that allow them to maintain the delusions and prejudices without which they would be lost...

The rich and powerful would be unable to secure their "rock" without the complicity of those whose delusions and prejudices they feed into...

A greater travesty than it never happening would be to allow it to fall into obscurity and be forgotten...
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 49
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/5/2010 11:41:51 AM

It isn't my fault you fail to understand how to derive the meaning of words from usage and context... "promulgating" in the sentence posted clearly means "to put into action or force"... logic dictates it to be so, as you cannot prosecute individuals for war crimes simply for speaking about the information ("make known" or "proclaim", the other meanings of promulgate, neither of which logically fit the context)...



Understanding this requires something more than just the ability to make "either-or" distinctions... Perhaps the distinction between "words" and "deeds" is creating too much complexity because it is no longer just a "black-white"/"either-or"/"fer us-agin us" issue which can be described by opposite ends of a one-dimensional "line"... The "words-deeds" distinction adds a second dimension to the question which may be too abstract... I will attempt to explain it...

This sounds like you're channeling Bill Clinton on the witness stand.
Btw, sentences end with a single period (.), not three(...).

Speaking of Bill Clinton…

It would still have been a lie but a lie is generally not a crime... An act of international aggression against a sovereign nation based on those lies is a crime... Therein lies the distinction

Bill Clinton launched attacks on Iraq in June 1993 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mpWa7wNr5M), Sept 1996 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBCclD33wQU) and December 1998 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc). The US took control of the country's airspace. Iraqis probably even died. That’s certainly more than just talk. By your reasoning and logic, doesn’t all that also constitute an act of aggression against a sovereign nation (i.e. a war crime)? If not then wherein lies the distinction?

What shrub? We’re not discussing gardening, “War crimes is the topic of the thread”.
 dmotz
Joined: 11/19/2008
Msg: 50
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/5/2010 2:59:04 PM
Hard Starboard.
We can argue about this till the end of time my friend. Some folks just need to blame anyone they can for things that they do not like. They do not care what Clinton did. They do not care about Al Gore and what he said. They do not care that every intelligence agency from the US, England and other nations all said the same thing about Saddam and Iraq. All that matters is they are left leaning and refuse to see the entire history of what has taken place. Some just want to blame and blame without seeing the whole picture.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > US admits War Guilt