Bush and Blair found guilty of war crimes for Iraq attack

[Higgins86]

You didn't address them, because you can't. I am not anti-war by the way, believe. I(if I was alive or old enough when the war was going on) supported armed struggle against the British army in Ireland.



I gave you the main reasons for Iraq. Not even the most vehement defenders of the Iraq war(Hitchens for example) used the U.N and Saddam's lack of cooperation because it was bogus. Not content there though, you ignored my point that Bush and Blair knew that the U.N would fail to find any W.M.D.



The sanctions which were killing hundreds of thousands of people. The Desert Fox operation which destroyed Iraqi infrastructure, etc. What had they got to do with the 2003 invasion? Nothing, at all. You're clutching at straws here. You're ignoring everything I said and talking about a 3 day strike.



Many Arabs flocked to Iraq to study in universities. That is not saying Iraq under Saddam was great, but it was hardly worse than it is now. Look up stories and statistics about male rape crimes on the rise. The point about women not being able to go to college is from ITV news. Even Afghanistan, women are banned from parks, cafe's, etc. This comes from the BBC as well. A documentary about a young British girl who goes back to Afghanistan. This is not blaming you now for this. You don't understand that these people wnat laws by God, not by man. They won't see you as liberator's, they see you as occupiers.



With no evidence at all to back that up. Tell me, I thought you were going to be welcomed as liberators? Where you?

l

You destroyed the infrastructure from bombings. Your government killed over 500,000 babies from sanctions which U.N diplomats called genocide. You destroyed Iraqi's food distribution system which U.N diplomat's called "one of the best in the world". You fueled hatred of your country and America and the sanctions on Iraq were a main reason for Bin Laden's antipathy towards the west, particularly America. The infant mortality rate has augmented as well.

You didn't improve the infrastructure at all, that is an ample joke.

I am sorry to denigrate your service, but your contempt for courts and other events is truly remarkable. The fact you even brushed off the point about Clinton and the Kurds is all that needs to be said. You specifically said that you stopped a mass murderer killing his own, yet you have no qualms with your ally doing the same. I don't honestly believe that you understand the region or know the dictator's that Britain and America backs up.

Im sorry you supported the armed stuggle against the British army in Ireland, are we talking about the Easter rising or the IRA in Northern Ireland where they targeted civillains and unarmed military?

1. Could not care less what you think about my service.
2. I do not hold contempt for courts only mock trials from countries who had no involvment in the conflict and hold no bearing,
3. Your comparsion to nazi CC guard was one of the most stupid things I have ever heard. You realise that soldiers like me spent most of our time policing the local population and protecting them from the Mahdi and other groups who actively targeted them and us.
4. "That is not saying Iraq under Saddam was great, but it was hardly worse"....In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights, which stated that there had been no improvement in the human rights crisis in Iraq. Full political participation at the national level was only given to members of the Ba'ath Party, about 8% of the population. Halabja poison gas attack, the Anfal campaign, when we invaded we found thousands of mass grave which are still being uncovered now.
5. The Shi'ites and groups like it treated us like liberators.
6. Dont talk to me about not understanding the region as from the looks of it you seem to have your head up your ass if you think Iraq was a better place under Saddam.


by the way I could go on all night about the stuff Saddam did to those people

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Any soldier who believes his government committed genocide and still served in the military really is some kind of weirdo. You believe your government committs genocide, yet you volunteer to serve in its army? Clearly you don't have the courage of your convictions, or you're not telling the truth. I don't know which it is and frankly I don't care.

And I'll match my combat record with you any day of the week. The difference between us is that I don't use it as a crutch.

This was never a whose dick is bigger contest, you're the one who started trying to play a "i know a veteran" card to try to validate your argument. I try to leave it out of the conversation period. Also, my convictions on this matter didn't come about until recently. I used to be the typical bloodthirsty infantryman ready to kick some ass. Then I woke up one day and realized that life is precious, and shouldn't be squandered or extinguised when not necessary.

You guys can reword it or justify it all you want. Mac put it best when he said he totally finds it morally acceptable for another country to nuke one or more of our cities if we're being obnoxious. I don't know what's more apalling, that he actually said it, or that he doesn't see anything wrong with it.

 

[German guy]

(...) Then I woke up one day and realized that life is precious, and shouldn't be squandered or extinguised when not necessary.

You guys can reword it or justify it all you want. Mac put it best when he said he totally finds it morally acceptable for another country to nuke one or more of our cities if we're being obnoxious. I don't know what's more apalling, that he actually said it, or that he doesn't see anything wrong with it.

A "like" for this part.

But I don't think it was unethical to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for the simple reason it saves many lives. Else, the US would have had to invade the Japanese homelands with conventional force and a much higher bloodshed. Japan was not inclined to capitulate, and didn't even after the first nuke, it took a second to make them.

 

[American]

I imagine Bush and Blair laughing, and saying "Come and get us". LMAO.

A court in Malaysia, how silly is that?

 

[mac]

yeah we should have hung FDR for his screw ups too.

but I am glad we nuked Japan, my father was going to be in the invasion force

I wouldn't say I'm glad we nuked Japan, I'd say I'm glad we finally broke their will to fight, and that the million Americans it was estimated would have died in an invasion of mainland Japan were spared. No to mention the much greater cost in Japanese life throughout the country, rather than in just two cities.

And I'm glad your father was spared...

 

[mac]

You guys can reword it or justify it all you want. Mac put it best when he said he totally finds it morally acceptable for another country to nuke one or more of our cities if we're being obnoxious. I don't know what's more apalling, that he actually said it, or that he doesn't see anything wrong with it.

What I said is that it is perfectly acceptable for a country to defend itself. At the time, the Nuke was the only thing capable of doing that...we didn't have the precision bombing and potent non nuclear munitions we have now. So you know, I oppose war all together...but I don't need to rewrite history and misplace blame to come to that conviction.

 

[Wiggen]

"Admiral Kimmel, in a 1958 interview, articulated the reason he and General Short were kept in the dark about the impending attack -- Roosevelt needed the attack a pretext to enter the war. "

9-11 Review: The Pearl Harbor Attack

Do Freedom of Information Act Files Prove FDR Had Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor?: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

"In November, 1940, FDR ordered the Red Cross Disaster Relief director to secretly prepare for massive casualties at Pearl Harbor because he was going to let it be attacked."

DID FDR ALLOW JAPANESE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR ON PURPOSE? | Steven Robert Travers | Blog Post | Red Room

Admiral Kimmel is covering his ass. He and Short made a number of really stupid decisions, in spite of warnings that the Japanese were likely to attack someplace.

As for your supposed link, do you honestly think an American President would announce to anybody that he was going to let American territory be attacked? Get serious.

 

[Wiggen]

A "like" for this part.

But I don't think it was unethical to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for the simple reason it saves many lives. Else, the US would have had to invade the Japanese homelands with conventional force and a much higher bloodshed. Japan was not inclined to capitulate, and didn't even after the first nuke, it took a second to make them.

The people who ring their hands about the atomic bomb attacks have no answer for the points you raised. So they mostly just ingore them or reach the conclusion that Japan was ready to surrender anyway, without a single shred of proof ever being offered. The Japanese fought with ferocity for every stinking no-name piece of rock in the Pacific - sometimes to the last man - yet we are supposed to believe that they would willingly have surrendered the Japanese homeland without a fight. Absolutely insane.

 

[Wiggen]

That may be true. However, it doesn't mean that they are wrong in their condemnation. You do realize that the world hold the U.S up as a country that doesn't give a damn about anything as long as it gets its way? Well, until Obama is outed, it has died down slightly since he came into the Oval office, then the antipathy will rise again from western Europe.

If I actually had any respect for the views of the European Left, this might bother me. Since I don't, it doesn't. The thing you have to remember about western Europe is that they were powerless to stop the slaughter in Bosnia and it would have continued until, at the request of the Europeans, they U.S. entered and stopped it cold. That's just one example.

 

[Wiggen]

This was never a whose dick is bigger contest, you're the one who started trying to play a "i know a veteran" card to try to validate your argument. I try to leave it out of the conversation period. Also, my convictions on this matter didn't come about until recently. I used to be the typical bloodthirsty infantryman ready to kick some ass. Then I woke up one day and realized that life is precious, and shouldn't be squandered or extinguised when not necessary.

You guys can reword it or justify it all you want. Mac put it best when he said he totally finds it morally acceptable for another country to nuke one or more of our cities if we're being obnoxious. I don't know what's more apalling, that he actually said it, or that he doesn't see anything wrong with it.

You're the one who claims his country committed genocide, which of necessity makes the airmen and soldiers implementing that policy guilty of war crimes in your eyes. I totally reject that position. I find it strange that it wasn't until you became a soldier that you learned anything about the history of the Second World War. You've obviously been reading the wrong books.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

You're the one who claims his country committed genocide, which of necessity makes the airmen and soldiers implementing that policy guilty of war crimes in your eyes. I totally reject that position. I find it strange that it wasn't until you became a soldier that you learned anything about the history of the Second World War. You've obviously been reading the wrong books.

It wasn't until I became a soldier that I became aware of what our country is really capable of.

And no, in this particular situation, I don't consider them guilty of war crimes. In other situations however, there most certainly are such things as lawful and unlawful orders. *NOT talking about this instance* As a soldier of honor you have the obligation to disobey unlawful orders, ie: if your squad leader orders you to open fire on a crowd of civilians. Even if there might be an insurgent hiding among them.

I think it's interesting that you consider that someone developing moral convictions over time that weren't once there the lack of understanding history.

 

[mac]

It wasn't until I became a soldier that I became aware of what our country is really capable of.

And no, in this particular situation, I don't consider them guilty of war crimes. In other situations however, there most certainly are such things as lawful and unlawful orders. *NOT talking about this instance* As a soldier of honor you have the obligation to disobey unlawful orders, ie: if your squad leader orders you to open fire on a crowd of civilians. Even if there might be an insurgent hiding among them.

I think it's interesting that you consider that someone developing moral convictions over time that weren't once there the lack of understanding history.

The point is more likely described thus: The nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were horrific and costly in terms of human life, but, the only other alternative to the bombings available at the time would have been far more horrific in terms of the cost of human lives, both Japanese and American.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

The point is more likely described thus: The nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were horrific and costly in terms of human life, but, the only other alternative to the bombings available at the time would have been far more horrific in terms of the cost of human lives, both Japanese and American.

I agree, it was a horrible, horrible situation, and a catch 22. I don't even necessarily "condemn" them for making the decision as such. However, the argument for me has always been whether it was morally just. I consider the intentional targeting of civilians by a military organization to be murder, not warfare.

 

[mac]

I agree, it was a horrible, horrible situation, and a catch 22. I don't even necessarily "condemn" them for making the decision as such. However, the argument for me has always been whether it was morally just. I consider the intentional targeting of civilians by a military organization to be murder, not warfare.

You can only call it an intentional targeting of civilians by ignoring all the other factors. Available weaponry being one of those factors.

 

[cmakaioz]

The target was the military and industrial complexes within the city. As you've pointed out, it was a n-u-c-l-e-a-r bomb. The civilian deaths were unavoidable.

Unless you are implying that the entire chain of military command responsible for executing the nuclear strikes in Japan were suffering from profound brain damage, you have just contradicted your earlier lie/rationalization that U.S. forces never intentionally targeted civilians.

See, here's how the most basic form of responsibility/accountability works. Sentient agents are -- at an absolute minimum -- responsible for the clearly predictable results of their actions. This is why, for example, people accept the practice of imposing lighter penalties (if any penalties at all) on someone who accidentally drops a heavy object on a coworker's foot (potentially breaking it) vs. someone who goes straight for that same foot with a baseball bat and crushes it without mercy. No remotely rational person would accept as a reasonable excuse the defense of "when I hit him in the foot five times with the baseball bat, I had no idea I might end up breaking anything."

It is precisely because civilian deaths (which, let's be clear, were MOST of the deaths and casualties) were unavoidable that the strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ARE -- accurately -- viewed as atrocities (including many, like myself, who recognize them as instances of genocide). As I pointed out in my previous post regarding Rafael Lemkin (the person who originated the term), genocide includes but is not limited to outright physical extermination of a people. It also extends to acts which clearly undermine the ability of a people to exist as a people, to retain their identity and self-determination.

There's no plausible case to be made that those responsible for dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki couldn't have foreseen the massive indiscriminate casualties. "Oops! We didn't realize it would kill so many people!" isn't a justification...it's a farcical insult and whitewashing of history.

Finally, I'd add that while intention is NOT a requirement of genocide, such intent was clearly demonstrated anyway. It was not an accident that U.S. forces sent planes halfway around the world to drop nuclear bombs. It required serious planning, a dramatic and coordinated outpouring of resources and manufacture, and the results were clearly anticipated, not a surprise. That, absolutely, IS intention.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

You can only call it an intentional targeting of civilians by ignoring all the other factors. Available weaponry being one of those factors.

I ignored no factors. Just because you have a nuke doesn't mean that you have to use it. I have a gun, and it doesn't mean that I need to use it to kill a mouse. As human beings we are given the gift of discretion.

We can go back and forth for years, or you can accept that I will never adjust my moral code:

- The intentional targeting of civilians by a military organization is morally unethical, and is murder, not warfare.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Unless you are implying that the entire chain of military command responsible for executing the nuclear strikes in Japan were suffering from profound brain damage, you have just contradicted your earlier lie/rationalization that U.S. forces never intentionally targeted civilians.

See, here's how the most basic form of responsibility/accountability works. Sentient agents are -- at an absolute minimum -- responsible for the clearly predictable results of their actions. This is why, for example, people accept the practice of imposing lighter penalties (if any penalties at all) on someone who accidentally drops a heavy object on a coworker's foot (potentially breaking it) vs. someone who goes straight for that same foot with a baseball bat and crushes it without mercy. No remotely rational person would accept as a reasonable excuse the defense of "when I hit him in the foot five times with the baseball bat, I had no idea I might end up breaking anything."

It is precisely because civilian deaths (which, let's be clear, were MOST of the deaths and casualties) were unavoidable that the strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ARE -- accurately -- viewed as atrocities (including many, like myself, who recognize them as instances of genocide). As I pointed out in my previous post regarding Rafael Lemkin (the person who originated the term), genocide includes but is not limited to outright physical extermination of a people. It also extends to acts which clearly undermine the ability of a people to exist as a people, to retain their identity and self-determination.

There's no plausible case to be made that those responsible for dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki couldn't have foreseen the massive indiscriminate casualties. "Oops! We didn't realize it would kill so many people!" isn't a justification...it's a farcical insult and whitewashing of history.

Finally, I'd add that while intention is NOT a requirement of genocide, such intent was clearly demonstrated anyway. It was not an accident that U.S. forces sent planes halfway around the world to drop nuclear bombs. It required serious planning, a dramatic and coordinated outpouring of resources and manufacture, and the results were clearly anticipated, not a surprise. That, absolutely, IS intention.

Beautifully crafted, my good sir.

 

[mac]

I ignored no factors. Just because you have a nuke doesn't mean that you have to use it. I have a gun, and it doesn't mean that I need to use it to kill a mouse. As human beings we are given the gift of discretion.

We can go back and forth for years, or you can accept that I will never adjust my moral code:

- The intentional targeting of civilians by a military organization is morally unethical, and is murder, not warfare.

Your moral code is admirable, but misplaced here. Japan attacked the US, and despite a long and costly war...Japan showed no inclination to stop fighting. American resources to continue fighting were dwindling...and America wanted to end the war. There were very few options available. If you wish to condemn the Nuclear bombings of Japan...what would you suggest should have been done in their place in order to end the war?

 

[cmakaioz]

Committee Leader For Investigation Into The Aldaran Genocide: Mr. Vader, you stand accused of orchestrating a genocide against the people of Aldaran...how do you plead?

Darth Vader: Not Guilty. I was leading a mission to put down a terrorist cell whose base was on Aldaran.

CL: Were you aware that the Death Star is capable of destroying planets?

DV: Of course! This station is now -- er, was -- the Ultimate Power in the Universe!

CL: So you acknowledge that using the Death Star against an enemy installation would also result in destroying the planet?

DV: Well, yes of course, but I didn't INTEND to destroy the planet...

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Your moral code is admirable, but misplaced here. Japan attacked the US, and despite a long and costly war...Japan showed no inclination to stop fighting. American resources to continue fighting were dwindling...and America wanted to end the war. There were very few options available. If you wish to condemn the Nuclear bombings of Japan...what would you suggest should have been done in their place in order to end the war?

I definitely won't touch the fact that FDR and the US largely provoked the Japanese in the first place, for another day perhaps.

I never claimed to have a better solution, the only claim that I made was that it was unethical, and murder.

 

[mac]

I definitely won't touch the fact that FDR and the US largely provoked the Japanese in the first place, for another day perhaps.

You mean the standard Democrat version of diplomacy...ie...sanctions? That's a whole different argument. What is not arguable is that the Japanese attacked the US...not the other way around.

I never claimed to have a better solution, the only claim that I made was that it was unethical, and murder.

Would an invasion of mainland Japan costing twice as many deaths on both sides have been more ethical?

 

[Wiggen]

I definitely won't touch the fact that FDR and the US largely provoked the Japanese in the first place, for another day perhaps.

I never claimed to have a better solution, the only claim that I made was that it was unethical, and murder.

You mean by convincing the Japanese to invade China and engage in atrocities, among which was the Rape of Nanking and the subjugation of people throughout Asia? Yes, that was damned clever of them.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/nanking.htm

I wouldn't bother reading the link if I was you. It might just possibly cause you to doubt your absolute certainty about who the bad guys were during World War II.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Would an invasion of mainland Japan costing twice as many deaths on both sides have been more ethical?

Although more bloodshed, strictly from an ethical standpoint, yes.

You mean by convincing the Japanese to invade China and engage in atrocities, among which was the Rape of Nanking and the subjugation of people throughout Asia? Yes, that was damned clever of them.

Remember, we weren't going to go there. You should read up on it though, I know you're such a huge history buff.

 

[mac]

Although more bloodshed, strictly from an ethical standpoint, yes.

So, the cost of human lives is not actually your concern?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

So, the cost of human lives is not actually your concern?

This is a question of ethics, and of absolutes. I extended this scenario to every targeting of civilians by nuclear weapons. I wasn't a general, or a president in WWII, so I do not have all the information to make such a call. However, I believe the call that was made was unethical. To me the ends don't always justify the means.

If you remember I gave you an example of whether or not it would be moral and ethical for another country to nuke one of our major cities during a time of war, simply because it had a few military targets in it, and you couldn't have agreed more. That is what this discussion is really about.

If we allow the intentional killing of civilians, we are no better than the terrorists, and that I refuse to believe.