Though the webmaster admits having Democrat sympathies, I find the information quite interesting and mostly unbiased. What do you guys think?
The struggle for the Senate looks really fun, too.
![Ha ha ha! :lol](./images/smilies/bd_laugh.gif)
Bush had absolutely nothing to do with Abu Gharib, nor did his staff. That situation was the result of a few sadistic reservists and an incompetant general officer. Similarly, whether or not Saddam had deployable NBC weapons is irrelevant; he was certainly working towards them, we had no way of knowing he didn't have them, and the mere possibility of an NBC exchange in the region poses too high a risk to every industrialized nation on the globe. The thousandth soldier killed is of no more significane than the first.mrmooky wrote:A few minor things. WMDs, Abu Ghraib, the 1000th soldier killed in Iraq. Nothing too big. It's not like he, you know, had sex with an intern or anything.
So the Commander in Chief is in no way responsible for nor accountable to his troops?Salvation122 wrote:Bush had absolutely nothing to do with Abu Gharib, nor did his staff. That situation was the result of a few sadistic reservists and an incompetant general officer.mrmooky wrote:A few minor things. WMDs, Abu Ghraib, the 1000th soldier killed in Iraq. Nothing too big. It's not like he, you know, had sex with an intern or anything.
For the actions of individuals? No. Certainly, for strategic decisions, but the President's job is the direction, not management, of the military. That's what the Joint Chiefs are for.Cazmonster wrote:So the Commander in Chief is in no way responsible for nor accountable to his troops?Salvation122 wrote:Bush had absolutely nothing to do with Abu Gharib, nor did his staff. That situation was the result of a few sadistic reservists and an incompetant general officer.mrmooky wrote:A few minor things. WMDs, Abu Ghraib, the 1000th soldier killed in Iraq. Nothing too big. It's not like he, you know, had sex with an intern or anything.
Certainly, in that vague way the President is responsible for everything that happens below him on the chain of command. But you knew that; you, like the other Bush-haters, just have to make it sound like he's /personally/ responsible, and not indirectly responsible, because instead of criticizing a bad president for the bad things he's actually done, people have to criticize him for the things that /look/ the worst, whether he's to blame or not.Cazmonster wrote:So the Commander in Chief is in no way responsible for nor accountable to his troops?
WMDs: Oh well. Better too soon than too late.mrmooky wrote:WMDs, Abu Ghraib, the 1000th soldier killed in Iraq. Nothing too big.
People seem to forget that the problem there didn't have much to do with who he was fucking, but that he managed to perjure himself in the process of denying it. The fact that he lied about it under oath was the big problem. Of course, the morality police had their problems too, but none of them were legal.It's not like he, you know, had sex with an intern or anything.
A war that ended almost that long ago, you mean. But this is all still way off the topic of the thread, and since I didnt have the time to read the actual site, I won't say anything about it until I do.Raygun wrote:...1000th soldier killed: For a war that's been going on a year and a half? We're doing pretty fucking good if you ask me...
Article on Rumsfeld and Rice being involved in prisoner torture.3278 wrote:Pretty sad, really; there are a lot of vastly superior reasons to hate him than things he had no role or knowledge in.Cazmonster wrote:So the Commander in Chief is in no way responsible for nor accountable to his troops?
And that shows you how much people pay attention Flame. You said it yourself-the end to major combat. And in a military sense-major combat is over. No longer is it a mass of assembled forces, with defined fortified positions, and clear strategic goals.FlameBlade wrote:It did. Sort of. President Bush declared the end to major combat with that mission accomplished sign on the boat with plane photo op. Many people took this as an end of war.
Dude, the headline on that article is a lie. Nothing in the article ties Rumsfeld or Rice to torture. Rumsfeld is tied to concealing a detainee from the Red Cross at the behest of our black ops intelligence service, and Rice is tied to visiting Iraq. Wow.Article on Rumsfeld and Rice being involved in prisoner torture.
If Rumseld and Rice had a role in this, Bush must have. They're in his cabinet.
Certainly in the specific way where the president sets up a detention camp in a military base outside the US with the explicit goal of making sure that the people kept there have no legal rights at all.3278 wrote:Certainly, in that vague way the President is responsible for everything that happens below him on the chain of command.Cazmonster wrote:So the Commander in Chief is in no way responsible for nor accountable to his troops?
Where were all these weapons going to come from? All that cash he built up under the economic sanctions?Raygun wrote:WMDs: Oh well. Better too soon than too late.
See Rev's above post. Yes, we've established that the Bush administration itself was not solely responsible for the abuse, but they still have a fair bit to answer for.Raygun wrote:Abu Ghraib: Sucks, but it had nothing to do with Bush. I hope those assholes go to jail for a long time.
If it were a necessary war, you would be doing pretty fucking good. But it's not a necessary war.Raygun wrote:1000th soldier killed: For a war that's been going on a year and a half? We're doing pretty fucking good if you ask me.
That depends very much on whether you consider oral sex to be "sexual relations". Personally, I think it counts, but supposedly the majority of Americans disagree with me. Either way, there's not a chance in hell that a court would ever convict.Raygun wrote:People seem to forget that the problem there didn't have much to do with who he was fucking, but that he managed to perjure himself in the process of denying it. The fact that he lied about it under oath was the big problem.It's not like he, you know, had sex with an intern or anything.
You're joking, right? I mean, this has to be a joke, because you have to know Hussein did, in fact, have weapons of mass destruction, because he used them, on Kurds and Iranians, among other people. And you have to know he had umpteen Presidential Palaces. And that, sanctions or no, Hussein built up vast amounts of cash. So either you're joking, or you're being completely irrational because you hate President Bush and will say or believe anything to be on the side opposite him on every issue.mrmooky wrote:Where were all these weapons going to come from? All that cash he built up under the economic sanctions?Raygun wrote:WMDs: Oh well. Better too soon than too late.
The same place the money to build the fifty-some-odd presidential palaces that were built and reconstructed after Desert Storm came from? That would be my first guess.mrmooky wrote:Where were all these weapons going to come from? All that cash he built up under the economic sanctions?
That's what we call "hindsight". Better to lose a thousand guys over a year and a half than a hundred thousand in an hour and a half because nobody ever thought it was necessary to take control of a situation. And now we can't just back out. Do you want to just pack up and leave? I'm sure that would make everyone happy.If it were a necessary war, you would be doing pretty fucking good. But it's not a necessary war.
I seriously doubt that. Such a bullshit argument.That depends very much on whether you consider oral sex to be "sexual relations". Personally, I think it counts, but supposedly the majority of Americans disagree with me.
Dude, come on. He fucking lied. You know it, I know it. If it were Bush who did it, you'd be on the other side of the argment right now.Either way, there's not a chance in hell that a court would ever convict.
What? No.Rev wrote:Certainly in the specific way where the president sets up a detention camp in a military base outside the US with the explicit goal of making sure that the people kept there have no legal rights at all.
Where by "many" you mean "One, who was a citizen of that nation."Certainly in the specific way where the administration makes sure that many prisoners are transfered to countries where torture is routine and continues to interrogate them.
They don't.Certainly in the specific way where the president announces to the world, and every US soldier, on camera that the geneva conventions do not apply to our enemies in the war on terror.
Cite. From a reputable news organization. That doesn't rely on "anonymous sources."Certainly in the specific way where the white house finds it necessary to obtain a legal opinion that painfull interrogation short of that which would result from serious physical injury such as organ failure or death is OK.
The Red Cross's complaints were mostly bullshit.Certainly in the specific way where the administration manages to ignore for several months complaints by the red cross and other organizations of prisoner abuse around the world only actually doing anything when photos show up on american TV.
He did not create that environment, and even if he did, it does not make him personally responsbile.At a minimum Bush and his administration created an environment extreemly conducive to prisoner abuse through numerous actions, inactions, and public statements and that makes him personally responsible.
Well, ideally.ak404 wrote:So he was a shitty leader and a tyrant. Does this mean we get to overthrow all of 'em, then?
That was done a long, long time ago.Does this set a precedent for interfering in the affairs of other countries we don't happen to like?
Your question does not parse. On the international level, pure power is the only thing that matters, regardless of what others tell you.Aside from pure power, what gives us the right to assume the mantles of judge, jury, and executioner?
That's not the justification given for the overthrow, nor the actual reason for it, and you know it.ak404 wrote:So he was a shitty leader and a tyrant. Does this mean we get to overthrow all of 'em, then?
No. It was actually pretty stupid and wasteful. History will judge this action poorly. Now, that's not to say /someone/ shouldn't have done something about Hussein's unproven assertion that he'd destroyed his WMDs, as well as his tyranny. I just don't think it should have been us.ak404 wrote:Did we really have to take the time to get sidetracked?
As Sal said, "HA! No."ak404 wrote:Does this set a precedent for interfering in the affairs of other countries we don't happen to like?
There is no right but power. If there is something which gives right, it most commonly is said to be morality, and the US certainly could claim a moral necessity in this case. Nevertheless, since morality is bullshit, power is the only right. Fortunately, there are more kinds of power than force. Many of which we should have used.ak404 wrote:Aside from pure power, what gives us the right to assume the mantles of judge, jury, and executioner?
Semantics, Joe. You know he meant force of arms. Power can be defined as the ability to influence other nations; whether or not they consider that forceful is really irrelevant, and whether or not it is used aggressively does not affect its definition.Salvation122 wrote:Not really. Diplomatic bullying is force. Leveraging trade is force, as is an embargo. Dumping a whole bunch of your currency is force. It's force that could quite possibly kill a lot of people too. It's just not as loud.3278 wrote:Fortunately, there are more kinds of power than force.
No! Bush's statements specifically said that no enemy forces remained in Iraq. It was a legal statement. It changed the rules the military had to work under.Torin Proud wrote:And that shows you how much people pay attention Flame. You said it yourself-the end to major combat. And in a military sense-major combat is over. No longer is it a mass of assembled forces, with defined fortified positions, and clear strategic goals.FlameBlade wrote:
It did. Sort of. President Bush declared the end to major combat with that mission accomplished sign on the boat with plane photo op. Many people took this as an end of war.
Yes, they do. The premise of the Geneva Conventions is that all combatants are lawful, to use the administration's terminology, and that declaring one unlawful must be done on a case by case basis. It can not be applied to an entire force without regard to individual circumstance.Salvation 122 wrote:They don't.Certainly in the specific way where the president announces to the world, and every US soldier, on camera that the geneva conventions do not apply to our enemies in the war on terror.
It would if he was a military officer. Creating, or refusing to change, a specific environment subjects a commander to punitive action for offenses that environment promoted. Why? Because, by virtue of command authority, one can create an environment. Therefore, any environment in place is there because of the command's choice, and thus, any offense promoted by the environment is condoned, approved, and possibly encouraged by the command.Salvation 122 wrote:He did not create that environment, and even if he did, it does not make him personally responsbile.At a minimum Bush and his administration created an environment extreemly conducive to prisoner abuse through numerous actions, inactions, and public statements and that makes him personally responsible.
Um, not really. If I recall, the Geneva Conventions apply only to forces engaged in declared combat and war. Terrorists and terrorist groups that are not an actual country/government sanctioned army are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. This is me drawing mostly on memory but I'm sure this will be clarified by others.Yes, they do. The premise of the Geneva Conventions is that all combatants are lawful, to use the administration's terminology, and that declaring one unlawful must be done on a case by case basis. It can not be applied to an entire force without regard to individual circumstance.
Yeah, but starting non-hostile semantics games is, like, half the fun of these boards. Really. It's kinda sad.Elldren wrote:Semantics, Joe. You know he meant force of arms.
So... we're in agreement, then? I'm not entirely sure what you're saying.Power can be defined as the ability to influence other nations; whether or not they consider that forceful is really irrelevant, and whether or not it is used aggressively does not affect its definition.
Again, I'm not sure what you're asking. On the international level, balance of power is something that just sorta naturally happens, and there's no real way around that besides global despotism and/or utopia in the Star Trek mode. Within a nation, I'm somewhat libertarian, but am happy with the Constitution the United States has (assuming a somewhat constructionist interpretation.)BTW: I know we have two well-spoken and voiced realists here: what theories of power distribution do you subscribe to, if any? (i.e. Balance of Power, etc.)
How involved was the President in setting up Guantanamo Bay Detention Center for the holding of detainees? The government is certainly attempting to maintain it with those detained having no legal rights whatsoever. Equally, the government, presumably with the President's consent and tacit approval at the least, is attempting to maintain even US citizens apprehended within the US in a state without any real legal recourse. No charge, no trial, just indefinite detention in a military brig. I suspect Abu Ghraib was also set up in similar fashion, and again with the President's tacit approval - if not directly then by direct subordinates whom he directly appointed.Salvation122 wrote:What? No.Rev wrote:Certainly in the specific way where the president sets up a detention camp in a military base outside the US with the explicit goal of making sure that the people kept there have no legal rights at all.
At this point, I don't believe it matters how much of a hand he had in setting it up. It's how little of a hand he has in trying to tear it down that bothers me.Ang wrote:How involved was the President in setting up Guantanamo Bay Detention Center for the holding of detainees?