Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Rumsfeld Facing War Crimes in Germany; Oh brother...
Topic Started: Dec 1 2004, 08:34 PM (870 Views)
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Dandandat
Dec 2 2004, 10:00 AM
somerled
Dec 2 2004, 09:49 AM
Dandandat
Dec 2 2004, 08:27 AM
captain_proton_au
Dec 2 2004, 08:11 AM
What I dont understand is why these groups go after Rumsfeld, but ignore the leaders of places like Sierra Leone and the Sudan where REAL warcrimes are happening at the moment  :shrug:

I would venture a guess and say that war crimes are not what is important to them, its just a means to an end.

Maybe they consider Rumfeld a very big fish, and those others, not so big a fish.

Maybe they personally don’t like Rumsfeld and the bush demonstration and are using every means at their disposal to make them look bad and get them out of power.

Hell - nothing wrong with that approach .
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
somerled
Dec 2 2004, 10:12 AM
Minuet
Dec 2 2004, 10:02 AM
somerled
Dec 2 2004, 09:49 AM
Dandandat
Dec 2 2004, 08:27 AM
captain_proton_au
Dec 2 2004, 08:11 AM
What I dont understand is why these groups go after Rumsfeld, but ignore the leaders of places like Sierra Leone and the Sudan where REAL warcrimes are happening at the moment  :shrug:

I would venture a guess and say that war crimes are not what is important to them, its just a means to an end.

Maybe they consider Rumsfeld a very big fish, and those others, not so big a fish.

Well if one defines a big fish by where they come from rather then what they do then that person is a complete idiot.

None- the - less , Rumsfeld has a very high profile and many people see him as a war criminal (and he is far from likeable).

Those other people are also criminals and deserve prosecution - but are protected from prosecution largely because they are beyond the current reach of the Internation Court of Justice , just like Rumsfeld is (currently - and that can change sometime in the future - at which time he may well be brought to book along with his lackies like Bush, Franks and that guy who rank GBP in Cuba) , and he's worse as he pretends he has a just cause and he claims the moral high grounds despite walking all over international laws and conventions , and even USA's laws and constitution.

And once again you miss the point.

I said "Well if one defines a big fish by where they come from rather then what they do then that person is a complete idiot. "

Think about it for more then the usual 10 seconds you give yourself to come up with a glib answer.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
somerled
Dec 2 2004, 10:18 AM
Hell - nothing wrong with that approach .

So you agree with the misuses of power in order to get your political way because you can not get it legitimately. Some how that doesn’t surprise me.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Dandandat
Dec 2 2004, 10:14 AM
gvok
Dec 2 2004, 10:07 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Dec 2 2004, 08:06 AM
somerled
Dec 2 2004, 02:05 AM
doctortobe
Dec 2 2004, 02:45 AM
Yes, we should have just left Saddam alone.  HE wasn't a war criminal was he?

Saddam wasn't a nice leader, however that was not a good excuse to kill thousands and harm many more , and destroy a country in an effort to depose him.

And his character wasn't the reason used to wage war on Iraq , invade and occupy the place was it ?

I guess he wasn't a nice leader, if you overlook the THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND he had killed and buried in mass graves, or the hundreds of thousands tortured because they disagreed with him...

:realmad:

This reason has often been pulled out as an apology for the invasion and the destructive aftermath. I don't remember it being used as the primary reason for the invasion however.

Then I guess you where not paying attention before the war started as to the reasons given for going to war. WMD may have been played up to get people mobilized (much of the hype was form new outlets out to sell news) but it was not sighted as the only and/or most important reason.

I can't speak for Gvok , but I was following thing very closely as I was opposed to the adventure from the outset and a very long way from convinced that an invasion was justifyable.

And there was an awful lot of bulldust being tossed about then by Bush and his pals then and since.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
gvok
Dec 2 2004, 03:07 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Dec 2 2004, 08:06 AM
somerled
Dec 2 2004, 02:05 AM
doctortobe
Dec 2 2004, 02:45 AM
Yes, we should have just left Saddam alone.  HE wasn't a war criminal was he?

Saddam wasn't a nice leader, however that was not a good excuse to kill thousands and harm many more , and destroy a country in an effort to depose him.

And his character wasn't the reason used to wage war on Iraq , invade and occupy the place was it ?

I guess he wasn't a nice leader, if you overlook the THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND he had killed and buried in mass graves, or the hundreds of thousands tortured because they disagreed with him...

:realmad:

This reason has often been pulled out as an apology for the invasion and the destructive aftermath. I don't remember it being used as the primary reason for the invasion however.

Personal Response

With a nephew headed into the war zone, I spent a great deal of time reading in the period of time prior to the war.

Had I been asked the primary reason for war in Iraq prior to the war, I would have said that it was because Sadaam Hussein had a history of mass murder and that he continued to support the torture and killing of his own people as well as reward the people who killed Israelis. Further, given the fact his forces fired nearly every day on planes in the "no-fly" zones and given the information that he had WMD's, it appeared that he was escalating his attacks - not cutting them back - and that he had the capability to make those attacks even more deadly.

All information available prior to the war and among the reasons given for the war. Again most proven to be absolutely true.

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Wichita
Dec 2 2004, 10:22 AM
gvok
Dec 2 2004, 03:07 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Dec 2 2004, 08:06 AM
somerled
Dec 2 2004, 02:05 AM
doctortobe
Dec 2 2004, 02:45 AM
Yes, we should have just left Saddam alone.  HE wasn't a war criminal was he?

Saddam wasn't a nice leader, however that was not a good excuse to kill thousands and harm many more , and destroy a country in an effort to depose him.

And his character wasn't the reason used to wage war on Iraq , invade and occupy the place was it ?

I guess he wasn't a nice leader, if you overlook the THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND he had killed and buried in mass graves, or the hundreds of thousands tortured because they disagreed with him...

:realmad:

This reason has often been pulled out as an apology for the invasion and the destructive aftermath. I don't remember it being used as the primary reason for the invasion however.

Personal Response

With a nephew headed into the war zone, I spent a great deal of time reading in the period of time prior to the war.

Had I been asked the primary reason for war in Iraq prior to the war, I would have said that it was because Sadaam Hussein had a history of mass murder and that he continued to support the torture and killing of his own people as well as reward the people who killed Israelis. Further, given the fact his forces fired nearly every day on planes in the "no-fly" zones and given the information that he had WMD's, it appeared that he was escalating his attacks - not cutting them back - and that he had the capability to make those attacks even more deadly.

All information available prior to the war and among the reasons given for the war. Again most proven to be absolutely true.

End of Personal Response

Your recallection is very different to mine and that of most of the world's population.

Perhaps - you are giving Bush and Rumsfeld the benefit the doubt and have convinced yourself since that this is so.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
somerled
Dec 2 2004, 10:22 AM
I can't speak for Gvok , but I was following thing very closely as I was opposed to the adventure from the outset and a very long way from convinced that an invasion was justifyable.


So you are here admitting you had strong preconceived notions on the subject form the beginning and we are to believe that these notions did not cloud your judgment while the case was being made? right.


Quote:
 
And there was an awful of Bulldust being tossed about then by Bush and his pals.
I guess by them you mean WMD and I would agree with you (except for the fact that it was not Bulldust) that WMD where shown strongly in the case to go to war. But they where not the only reason given and they where not shown to be the most important reason. They where used as a means to mobilize the western world. Who in our selfish and self absorbed vain would have scuffled at any other reason that did not impact our direct and “immediate” lives.

Perhaps the reason why so many believe that WMDs where the only reason that was given, is that WMDs was the only reason these people took note of. They just let everything else slip by because it had no immediate impact on their daily lives.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
somerled
Dec 2 2004, 03:28 PM
Your recallection is very different to mine and that of most of the world's population.


Personal Response

BTW, since you are contact with most of the world's population, how are they doing?

Things going well with the jobs? Any new baby pictures? Who's getting married in that tribal village?

Just curious .... ;)

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!
With all this going on with Rumsfeld, can we safely assume he will not be the next cabinet member to resign his post?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Just the opposite, I would think.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
This is pretty much moot since the U.S. is exempt from being tried for war crimes by the World Court.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!
^^^^

touche'! forgot about that.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
So did I, in all honesty.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

I really despise Donald Rumsfeld. I don't know if he is a criminal or not, but I think he's a genuine jerk.

I thought it was really funny (in a sinister, dishonest kind of way) how he (Rumsfeld) dropped completely off the radar screen during the weeks leading up to the election - to be replaced by dyed-in-the-wool Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy Guilianni and several hip-hop bands.

Ah well - par for the "Bush" course.
| Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
benetil
Dec 2 2004, 05:48 PM
I really despise Donald Rumsfeld. I don't know if he is a criminal or not, but I think he's a genuine jerk.

I thought it was really funny (in a sinister, dishonest kind of way) how he (Rumsfeld) dropped completely off the radar screen during the weeks leading up to the election - to be replaced by dyed-in-the-wool Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy Guilianni and several hip-hop bands.

Ah well - par for the "Bush" course.

Personal Response

Actually Cabinet officials typically DON'T campaign for incumbents. I wouldn't say that it has never happened, but it certainly is extremely rare for it to happen IMO.

I would have been more surprised to have seen him than to not have seen him.

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus