I've been listening to Neil Young this evening and he has been suggesting some fine ideas. He says impeach the President, I suggest doing him for war crimes. Blair too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOntdFjhd5c
Printable View
I've been listening to Neil Young this evening and he has been suggesting some fine ideas. He says impeach the President, I suggest doing him for war crimes. Blair too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOntdFjhd5c
And I know I've done this thread before, but this stuff never gets old. Unlike that boring X-factor rubbish.
Tony Blair should be held to account too.
Of course he should. He is just as bad as any Nazi general in WW2 Nazi Germany. And I mean that. He was just further beyond the lines. He gave his orders from way back, but it still resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Blair is no human being and neither is Bush. Bush right now is playing golf and having fun, when really he deserves a noose around his neck like Saddaam.
"Oh, but I am an American", no excuses. You execute your own citizens America, now execute this one. Just do it under the war crimes thing.
This is likely a thread I will start whenever I hear a cool bit of music.
:vd: .......this is what you get when you regulate sad clicksQuote:
Originally Posted by milesOf course he should. He is just as bad as any Nazi general in WW2 Nazi Germany. And I mean that. He was just further beyond the lines. He gave his orders from way back, but it still resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Blair is no human being and neither is Bush. Bush right now is playing golf and having fun, when really he deserves a noose around his neck like Saddaam.
"Oh, but I am an American", no excuses. You execute your own citizens America, now execute this one. Just do it under the war crimes thing.
This is likely a thread I will start whenever I hear a cool bit of music.
Have we been gaming again???
It's funny that you say they are worse then Hitler because in a weird roundabout way, the war was started in large part due to the Holocaust. One of the key hawks in the White House was Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz who was pretty much the guy who orchestrated this war along with Cheney. His whole family pretty much perished in the Holocaust. Our 'containment' policy with Iraq which WAS working angered him because that was the same policy applied to Nazi Germany before the second world war.
But to say Bush and Blair are like the Nazi's who called for the eradication of an entire race is ridiculous. Come on now, there is no way. I don't think they should be tried for war crimes, but I have no energy to argue why.
Barbra Bush would be an awesome business name for someone who does bikini waxing or Brazilians.;)
the man is a hero to millions
only reason he isnt in office is because you cant serve more than 2 terms, otherwise the dubb would be in power forever
i love the man and everything about him
war crimes or not , I personally would love to see both Blair and Bush executed , for being lying cunts.
Yo Miles...
http://conor.net/clog/wp-content/upl...flips-bird.jpg
;D
I'd like to see him on one of those Celebrity Roasts. And with all the goofy liberal douche bag hollywood types roasting him.
That shit would be great. I'd buy the dvd! :D
Then imagine these liberals roasting him wearing John Kerry and Al Gore's masks in a huge vat cannibal style, that would sell and could possibly create a new american civil war:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Youngblood
I've not really participated in this thread because I realised I had already done a similar thread previously. But, I see a few responses that have caught my eye.
Amat, I have no idea how Wolfowitz losing his family in the holocaust justifies invading a sovereign state without the backing of the international community. That argument makes no real sense to me. If he was that bothered about such things then maybe he should have become a bigger advocate of Palestinian rights. That would appear more constructive to me rather than invading Iraq and killing over 100,000 civilians. People that would likely be alive today had the invasion not taken place and would have been living better had the absurd Iraqi sanctions not been imposed. Sanctions on Iraq and yet nothing on Israel all these years? Total hypocrisy.
This thread is old news really, but I maintain that these criminals are being allowed to get away with murder and no moral man should allow excuses to be made for them.
Haha, no gaming this time, Lyle.
Just a Neil Young album this time. It set the mind flowing. Not one of his best albums, but there are a few nice tunes on there.
And if anyone would like to debate it, then I'm ready. But the good amongst you know that I am right anyway. George Bush is the most evil man of this century and part of the most terrible empire. It just so happens that America in this century has become all that it pretended to oppose in the last century. Basically a fascist state with a clever control of its media.
I can listen to Neil Young songs and not be politically swayed by him....at the end of the day he is of course just a musician.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
He is a smart guy with an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongI can listen to Neil Young songs and not be politically swayed by him....at the end of the day he is of course just a musician.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Nice way to deflect that your country has become the most corrupt, dangerous and twisted state in the world.
Seriously, you are Israel in the wing mirrors. It's just a case of building a wall for the poor now.
Mexico – United States barrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by milesHe is a smart guy with an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongI can listen to Neil Young songs and not be politically swayed by him....at the end of the day he is of course just a musician.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Nice way to deflect that your country has become the most corrupt, dangerous and twisted state in the world.
Seriously, you are Israel in the wing mirrors. It's just a case of building a wall for the poor now.
;D
I hate Paul Wolfowitz and the Iraq war with a burning passion. I'm just saying, that was indirectly a driving force behind the war. He hated the idea of 'containment' because it was the same one applied to Nazi Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
But it wasn't containment as Iraq wasn't actually invading anyone and had long been warded off of Kuwait. When it comes to containment Israel is a far more appropriate example to take the lead on and everyone turns a blind eye. Wolfowitz is full of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by amatI hate Paul Wolfowitz and the Iraq war with a burning passion. I'm just saying, that was indirectly a driving force behind the war. He hated the idea of 'containment' because it was the same one applied to Nazi Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
The U.S. policy for Iraq under Clinton was 'containment.'Quote:
Originally Posted by milesBut it wasn't containment as Iraq wasn't actually invading anyone and had long been warded off of Kuwait. When it comes to containment Israel is a far more appropriate example to take the lead on and everyone turns a blind eye. Wolfowitz is full of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by amatI hate Paul Wolfowitz and the Iraq war with a burning passion. I'm just saying, that was indirectly a driving force behind the war. He hated the idea of 'containment' because it was the same one applied to Nazi Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Containment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You do realize Bush is no longer President, right? Leave the man alone already. The war wasn't really his fault anyway. He was in a no win situationQuote:
Originally Posted by miles
Amat, there is no mention of Iraq in that link and Iraq had nothing to do with so called 'communism' anyway. So, either you are playing games or you are just confused. I stand by my previous arguments. Iraq had nothing to do with so called containment as it simply wasn't expanding anywhere and it was certainly not threatening the so called 'free' West with any alternative ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by amatThe U.S. policy for Iraq under Clinton was 'containment.'Quote:
Originally Posted by milesBut it wasn't containment as Iraq wasn't actually invading anyone and had long been warded off of Kuwait. When it comes to containment Israel is a far more appropriate example to take the lead on and everyone turns a blind eye. Wolfowitz is full of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by amatI hate Paul Wolfowitz and the Iraq war with a burning passion. I'm just saying, that was indirectly a driving force behind the war. He hated the idea of 'containment' because it was the same one applied to Nazi Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Containment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wolfowitz is obviously insane if that is what he really believes was happening. Iraq was just another middle east country with serious human rights issues, no different to many other countries in the region. Iraq was preyed upon by America largely because it was convenient to play up Saddam as the great big devil. It helped to deflect attention away from what the current governments in power were doing themselves and also was good for business once the invasion actually went ahead.
He only went and instigated it and mustered up public approval with outright lies and as a consequence over a hundred thousand civilians lost their lives, thousands of soldiers were killed and perhaps upwards of a million people were injured.Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent DemiseYou do realize Bush is no longer President, right? Leave the man alone already. The war wasn't really his fault anyway. He was in a no win situationQuote:
Originally Posted by miles
Sure, he is no longer President. But that man has a lot of blood on his hands. And for what exactly? Oil? Influence in the region?
We live and die by the choices we make in life and must be held accountable for the wrongs we do to others. Just because Bush is an ex-president and from a wealthy family does not mean that his crimes should remain unpunished. He made his choices.
I didn't read the wikipedia article before posting so my bad, it doesn't mention Iraq but I honestly figured you knew what it was. So, Iraq wasn't expanding anywhere because of containment! We had Sadaam and Iraq contained, crippled them but then made the mistake of invading. They were crumbling but guys like Paul Wolfowitz and opponents of containment (it's not a hard thing to read up about) denied that it ever worked for Iraq and that was a selling point to the war. Guys like Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney (who formerly was in support of containment) started beating the drums of war, things got rolling quickly and before midterm elections. Scared to lose the fear mongered vote, politicians didn't have the backbone to not support before the war and voted for it. This is where the Senate, Congress and the media failed us. Then of course the war happened. Containment should have stayed US strategy or 'slogan' as one article calls it.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesAmat, there is no mention of Iraq in that link and Iraq had nothing to do with so called 'communism' anyway. So, either you are playing games or you are just confused. I stand by my previous arguments. Iraq had nothing to do with so called containment as it simply wasn't expanding anywhere and it was certainly not threatening the so called 'free' West with any alternative ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by amatThe U.S. policy for Iraq under Clinton was 'containment.'Quote:
Originally Posted by milesBut it wasn't containment as Iraq wasn't actually invading anyone and had long been warded off of Kuwait. When it comes to containment Israel is a far more appropriate example to take the lead on and everyone turns a blind eye. Wolfowitz is full of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by amatI hate Paul Wolfowitz and the Iraq war with a burning passion. I'm just saying, that was indirectly a driving force behind the war. He hated the idea of 'containment' because it was the same one applied to Nazi Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Containment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wolfowitz is obviously insane if that is what he really believes was happening. Iraq was just another middle east country with serious human rights issues, no different to many other countries in the region. Iraq was preyed upon by America largely because it was convenient to play up Saddam as the great big devil. It helped to deflect attention away from what the current governments in power were doing themselves and also was good for business once the invasion actually went ahead.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128543&page=1
Such attacks would become the administration's favorite military option to enforce the newly emerging policy known as "containment." American and British planes would contain the Iraqi air force, patrolling no-fly zones in the north and south. U.N. inspectors would contain Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Containing Iraq: Sanctions Worked | Foreign Affairs
Contrary to what critics have said, we now know that containment helped destroy Saddam Hussein's war machine and his capacity to produce weapons.
AEI - Papers
"Containment required the continuous engagement of a potent U.S. military force in southern Turkey, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. The United States devoted roughly 28,000 troops, 30 naval vessels, 200 military aircraft and other equipment to Iraqi containment efforts prior to the pre-war buildup."
Differentiated Containment | Foreign Affairs
In its first term, the Clinton administration attempted to deal with the twin dangers of Iran and Iraq through a strategy of "dual containment" that kept both countries boxed in with economic sanctions and military monitoring. Dual containment, however, is more a slogan than a strategy, and far too blunt an instrument to serve American interests in the Middle East. The United States must employ a more nuanced approach, keeping the straitjacket on Saddam while seeking improved relations with Iran.
On the US Policy of Dual Containment of Iran and Iraq
Despite its widespread use, the meaning of the expression is not crystal clear; different individuals have had different interpretations of "containment" of Iran and Iraq. For some, it has meant keeping the two countries militarily, economically, and politically in check. This was the case with Iraq between 1990—when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and United Nations sanctions were imposed on Iraq—and 2003—when the US invaded Iraq for the second time and occupied the country. In the case of Iraq, it was hoped initially that economic pressures through extensive United Nations sanctions, as well as some limited military actions, would create discontent and lead to "regime change."
Barack Obama's Iraq Speech - Wikisource
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
Amazon.com: Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq (9781594201035): Thomas E. Ricks: Books
This book talks a lot about containment and the idea that it worked. If you haven't read this Miles, you really should. It details the entire run up to the war and is in my opinion the definitive book on the War and it's available for $3! Ali Allawi's book gets the attention but Allawi was a fraud himself.
I'm not confused Miles don't be such a prick, I'm basically agreeing with you without you knowing it because you're to eager to cut down other people's opinions. Containment towards Iraq was a very real thing and I believe it was working just like I believe we're working in containing Iran, as evidenced by the raucous wave of the last elections. That regime's foothold is not strong because we have effectively contained them. That's all I'm saying, I'm agreeing with you! Like Obama said, this is a "dumb war" because we had Iraq contained! He believed in the fact that containment was working and now there are few dissenting opinions on that. Wolfowitz and Cheney still rail against containment. Wolfowitz because he believed the Clinton policy was similar to the pre-WWII policy towards Germany. THAT'S ALL I WAS SAYING, just found it ironic. Do you still think 'containment' is a product of my imagination?
Right, I am beginning to see what you are saying now. That last post was much clearer.
So basically this policy of containment is America's means of bullying and controlling independant states. It's nothing new, but I have never really used the word containment to describe it. But I now see that it is a valid definition of the approach. Actually, rather than being effective in Iraq, I regard the sanctions as totally counterproductive. It killed many Iraqi's who had done nothing wrong, reduced standards of living and in fact it is argued that this actually helped to strengthen Saddam's grip on power. "It's all evil America's fault" etc. If America wanted regime change then they should have done so when the window was available at the time of the first Gulf war, but the US simply snubbed the Iraqi's that wanted change. Making up lies years later and then invading was obviously no way to go about things either.
Likewise I regard the controls on Iran to be hypocritical too. Iran doesn't invade sovereign countries, but arguably wants to develop nuclear weapons. This isn't entirely clear. But my argument is that if nations are to be 'contained' then why is there no containment policy on the very country that has most threatened world peace in recent years? Oh, but they are our allies. I am heading off into a different argument with that though.
There is a lot of bullshit inherent in world affairs and it's something that none of the power brokers even pretend to hide. The war mongering nations will tolerate twisted countries if they will do things for us. If not then they are the enemy and must be 'contained'.
I might use that word more in threads of my own. It's not bad.
Yeah I guess the wikipedia article was misleading.
I see where you're going, but when it comes to keeping certain countries from power, I say to contain the psychos. Sadaam, Ahmadinejad, Jong-Il, etc all fucken psychos and I don't trust them to be running country's and I don't mind America doing something about it. Not invading, because that costs us lives but yes that is what I believe. Israel does some shitty things, I can't say I'm completely comfortable with the US supporting them as much as they should but whatever, they do and I don't know enough about that.
Israel for me is the big elephant in the room when it comes to US foreign policy. I don't have any particular fondness for the psycho leaders either, but policy should be consistent and there shouldn't be obvious contradictions because that means that the policy is obviously hypocritical. But that's the thing where do you draw the line? Iran potentially wants nuclear weapons, but you can't very well say that they can't have a deterent when Israel is armed up to the eyes with them. To be consistent you have to force Israel to eradicate their stockpiles and say to Iran "see we are doing it the right way". And in turn America should destroy a massive pile of its own weapons and say to the world "we are being straight". But it's never a case of being straight or consistent.
If you are going to contain one psycho then you also have to contain them all. And that brings you to the the very definition of what a "psycho" is. I would very much include George Bush and Tony Blair as among the psycho's. That's where it becomes murky because if you tally up the total dead around the world I am sure Britain and America are responsible for more of it than any other nation. These psycho's are in a whole league of their own. So in that sense other psycho's can very well point their fingers and say "nobody should be picking on us because they are the bigger psycho's!". And in their own way I would have to completely agree with them.
You need to lead by example and Bush never did that. He waded in and became one of the biggest psycho's himself and that's why I think it would be great to make an example of him and start afresh making sure that it never happens again. Unfortunately, it looks as though Obama will be getting another thread on the same topic a few years later.
miles....since when is Neil Young smart? He's a Canadian too....one of the worst kinds ;)
In his own way he is very smart. He has his head screwed on when it comes to US politics and the environment. He writes very good songs when his mind is on it. But yeah, he is Canadian. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Folk singers and musicians in general know fuck all, they are idealistic and usually stoned out of their minds. You may as well have said you were listening to Kanye West.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
For all the dead he caused, from innocent civilians to the american soldiers, to have lied publicly to America about the WMD (that never existed), he should definitely. According to the Geneva convention, there is no way he'd get out from it. He's not as bad as the nazis though, that's an exaggeration but what he did was horrible. Unfortunately, I don't see the day that a G8 leader will ever be trial for war crimes, the day we'll see W or Putin (for the atrocities of Chechnya) or the Ju Jintao/Yang Ziming (for Tibet) Hens will have teeth. the La Haye tribunal was a very interesting addition and a necessary one for our era but it has been instrumentalized to serve the interests of the strongest.
I think the term lied is thrown around a little loosely. In retrospect obviously the Iraq invasion was a complete farce. Saddam didn't have WMD, didn't pose a serious security risk to the US and was largely contained. I think Bush and his advisors clearly created an enviroment that fostered finding intelligence to justify the invasion rather than decide if it was necessary or warranted at all. I know to some of you this is purely splitting hairs. I just don't believe that Powell gets up in front of the UN and knowingly tells them bold faced lies. I think if Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz etc knew he was misrepresenting the facts it would have come out by now. Saddam revealed during his debriefings that he did destroy or get rid of all of the WMD after the Gulf War but needed his military and nation at large to believe he had them to maintain power and further more needed the Arab nations to believe to keep his rep. Is it any less tragic the outcome being due to over zealous incompetence rather than malicious deceit? Not really...but since speculating should Bush be tried for war crimes is on par to speculating if Tyson would beat Ali it really doesn't matter
Junior was just fulfilling his daddy's unfulfilled mission. Too bad he had to lie for it. I just want to say to the US to just finish what you've started, or you have no right to mess up other countries. Hope Iraq won't be another Vietnam. Maybe Afganistan was justified though. Another thing I want to say to Americans is that if you're afraid to commit soldiers to tough combat jobs, just don't send 'em. It ain't right to blast civilians to save your soldiers, call it a collateral stuff, and pretend nothing happened. But don't get me wrong, I usually support US intervention when justified. If people are masacred by thousands, like in some African countries, it's time to stop 'em. I know America has always been willing and I'm all for it, but unfortunately, they hardly get support from others, and sometimes, are even bitterly opposed by some countries, likes France. And some even come up with these same 'ol musty conspiracy theory stories revolving around oil. Somalia's one example. US has been doing it alone, fellas, what a sad story. Millions died in Rwanda several years back while the whole world just watched. Well it's just a poor, black country which amounts to nothing so who cares, right? Wrong, babe.
By all means we're not doing that....we COULD just bomb the crap out of Iraq or Afghanistan and not worry about civilian casualties the way we bombed Japan, Germany, or Vietnam, but we're trying to be more surgical with our attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by pacfan
As for Africa, the entire continent has issues and it's sad because they are blessed with so many natural resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongBy all means we're not doing that....we COULD just bomb the crap out of Iraq or Afghanistan and not worry about civilian casualties the way we bombed Japan, Germany, or Vietnam, but we're trying to be more surgical with our attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by pacfan
As for Africa, the entire continent has issues and it's sad because they are blessed with so many natural resources.
Have you seen the new leaks that prove that high military and secret services tortured willingly and killed way more people than what they wanted to state and tried to keep it secret? Surgical strike is one of the funniest concept: throw a 500 kilos multi explosive heads on a target and pray that nobody on a radius of 5 kilometers get killed. They try, sure, but.... really not that hard.
Nameless, we're not carpet bombing them, we're not fire bombing them, we're not repeating what happened in Dresden.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nameless
Civillians die in war, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prevent War ain't pretty no matter how it's fought. I'm all for engaging in total warfare against the Taliban and Al Queda but it's hard to do that against groups instead of countries with physical boundries.
Bush's actions and the reasons for them date back to the early 90's. When his father was President. Bush Sr. defeat for reelection was largely due to his pulling out of the Gulf War without taking out Saddam. It was a costly mistake. Not only did it cost him reelection. But it left a black mark against him. And the Bush name. Bush Sr. always felt his Presidency was incomplete. The 4 years were not enough. So much he wanted to do. But couldn't. But someone else could. Bush Jr. became President with one personal agenda. Remove the black mark from the Bush name and finish up what his father started. No matter what. 9/11 gave him the excuse to get started. He went into Iraq and took out Saddam. Despite the reasons and excuses provided. It was all personal. Bush Jr. is looked at as a fool. But in reality he's not a stupid man. He just did what he thought was best. No matter what his advisors advised him. No matter how much the media crucified him. Or the public despised him. He didn't give a fuck. He was the President. He had the final say. And no matter how many young Americans had to die he was not gonna pull out of Iraq until he felt it was time. Bush Jr. took full advantage of his President power. He did whatever he wanted to do. Damn the consequences. If he had to win his reelection with shady moves. So be it. He's the fucking President. He can do that. And did. It's to early right now. But in years to come Bush Jr will be looked upon more favorably than he is now. A President who was not scared to get things done. Unlike the lame fuck who's currently in officeQuote:
Originally Posted by milesHe only went and instigated it and mustered up public approval with outright lies and as a consequence over a hundred thousand civilians lost their lives, thousands of soldiers were killed and perhaps upwards of a million people were injured.Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent DemiseYou do realize Bush is no longer President, right? Leave the man alone already. The war wasn't really his fault anyway. He was in a no win situationQuote:
Originally Posted by miles
Sure, he is no longer President. But that man has a lot of blood on his hands. And for what exactly? Oil? Influence in the region?
We live and die by the choices we make in life and must be held accountable for the wrongs we do to others. Just because Bush is an ex-president and from a wealthy family does not mean that his crimes should remain unpunished. He made his choices.
I disagree with pretty much everything you say here. You seem to be trying to justify a petty vendetta passed on from Daddy, outright fabrication of evidence, vote rigging and an ignorance and disregard for international law. Now this kind of behaviour is never acceptable, so I am going to assume that your post is tongue in cheek. There is surely no way that you believe all of that.
Though sometimes I have to wonder with you! ;D