MoveOn.org ::: Censure Bush

[bornslippy22]

there's only one way to find out!

and if Kerry wins the Demo election...i might just stick to what i know...

[bornslippy22]

Here's a really simple example.  The Japanese bombed a bunch of valid military targets in Hawaii in 1941.  It really pissed us off.  We turned around and immediately launched a counterattack with the sole purpose of dropping  bombs on downtown Tokyo.  Most of those bombs ended up getting dropped at random on factories, power stations, and ships in the port.  Including fishing vessels.

The Japanese are still pretty pissed off about that and about the hundred thousand civilians that we evaporated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Lots of Germans are still awfully sore about the fire bombing of Dresden.  Now a lot of Iraqis are pretty pissed off too.  If our rationalization for killing all of those people is the 3000 dead in NYC then we need to rethink our rationalizations because that one doesn't work.  We kill lots and lots and lots of civilians in just about every conflict that we get involved in.  That's one giant reason why us bleeding hearts don't like to see us getting involved in wars in the first place.

cough cough...to make a case for the Japanese and Germans, with the horrors that they did to humanity, completely throws ur arguement out the window...two wrongs dont make a right, but no way in HELL am i going to make a case for those two countries during WWII....

[Guest endymion]

Okay, well then you're missing the point.

The decisions that Hirohito made do not make it right that we snuffed all of those civilians in Japan. I know and love some of the ones who survived and I feel pretty strongly about this.

The decisions that Hitler made do not make it right for us to melt those people in Dresden. I know and love some of the people who survived that one too and I feel pretty strongly about that.

So how does a cult maniac killing a few thousand people in NYC somehow justify us killing all of these Iraqis?

Basically what the revenge killing supporters are saying is that we have not progressed beyond tribal warfare and Hammurabi's law. "You kill some of us, we will kill some of you." It's like a gang war on a global scale and we aren't even killing the right people. Surely civilization has produced a more useful way of resolving conflicts than going out and killing at least as many people as the other side managed to kill on your side?

[bornslippy22]

Okay, well then you're missing the point.

"You kill some of us, we will kill some of you."

i missed the POINT b/c u started ur arguement with that gibberish...the rest i didnt even read...and as far as ur little statement above..yes, thats how things are...we havent evolved as humans, we just have better means of killing each other...ur either for or against the war...for me, any removal of a ruthless dictator CANNOT be a bad thing...

[Guest endymion]

...for me, any removal of a ruthless dictator CANNOT be a bad thing...

Simple example of why you can't build a civilization based on that concept: lots of people consider Bush a ruthless dictator. Your reasoning provides a simple rationalization that makes it perfectly valid for a bunch of Iraqi insurgents to organize a nuclear bombing in Washington DC to wipe Bush off of the map. He's killed a bunch of Iraqi insurgents and Bush is in charge of the unwelcome (to them) occupation of their country. Your reasoning justifies them coming over here and blowing up the White House and a few million innocent civilians and club kids in DC.

The problem with using the "if you kill some of ours then we'll kill more of yours" mentality as the basic foundation civilization is that it leaves no room for the idea that maybe there are non-violent ways to resolve political conflicts. That concept is completely subjective and there can never be fair and orderly international law as long as people go around thinking that it's acceptable to kill people as long as they are from some other country.

[Guest JMT]

yes but once non-violent ways have failed completely, you have to be able to take action.

[bornslippy22]

Simple example of why you can't build a civilization based on that concept: lots of people consider Bush a ruthless dictator.  Your reasoning provides a simple rationalization that makes it perfectly valid for a bunch of Iraqi insurgents to organize a nuclear bombing in Washington DC to wipe Bush off of the map.

with the difference that: 1) Bush doesnt torture his people (speeches he gives are another thing) and kill them at will & 2) Bush doesnt plan on "governing" Iraq

he went in...did what he wanted to do...and now wants to get the "f" out of dodge...

[Guest guyman1966]

The decisions that Hitler made do not make it right for us to melt those people in Dresden.  I know and love some of the people who survived that one too and I feel pretty strongly about that.

those poor, poor Germans. :

[bornslippy22]

yes but once non-violent ways have failed completely, you have to be able to take action.

well, they do say that War is an extension of politics...

[Guest ciaran_r]

>:(Did you see what happened to hiroshima,

I know pearl harbour was a complete shock( and that film :), but that bomb was seriously fucked up, there must have been a better way to get a word accross.

Lets hope it never happens again! >

[bornslippy22]

>:(Did you see what happened to hiroshima,

I know pearl harbour was a complete shock( and that film :), but that bomb was seriously fucked up, there must have been a better way to get a word accross.

Lets hope it never happens again! >

i know history...and it was terrible what happened, but that is war...did u see what the Japanese did to cities near China? and Mongolia? they were WORSE than the Germans in what they did....America got its message across loud and clear...and i DONT think diplomacy would have worked at that point...the Emperor was pretty set in his ways...and i agree, lets hope Nuclear weapons are NEVER used again...

[Guest JMT]

i know history...and it was terrible what happened, but that is war...did u see what the Japanese did to cities near China? and Mongolia? they were WORSE than the Germans in what they did....America got its message across loud and clear...and i DONT think diplomacy would have worked at that point...the Emperor was pretty set in his ways...and i agree, lets hope Nuclear weapons are NEVER used again...

right. it ended the war right then. plus you cant judge the past by using the thinking of the today. we didnt live in that time.

[Guest endymion]

Matas, your argument makes it perfectly valid for an Iraqi to kill an American, on the grounds that hey, we do it all the time. All Americans are the same, civilians and soldiers, right? Just find any American and kill them to further your cause.

If your arguments can easily be used to justify the other side then they aren't good arguments. You guys need to find other reasons to justify our agression besides "3000 Americans died on 9/11". Once you come up with reasoning that justifies our actions and places us on the moral high ground then you're onto something.

-- 9/11 isn't going to do it, not when you're talking about Iraq. We have killed more than 3000 Iraqi civilians at this point. Arguments based on that are pure hypocrisy and do not place us on the moral high ground.

-- The evil dictator thing doesn't work. There are lots of evil dictators still in power who aren't sitting on oil. We shirk our World Cop duties in places like Liberia and Haiti whenever we have a chance. That argument does not place us on the moral high ground.

Any other ideas?

[bornslippy22]

Matas, your argument makes it perfectly valid for an Iraqi to kill an American, on the grounds that hey, we do it all the time.  All Americans are the same, civilians and soldiers, right?  Just find any American and kill them to further your cause.

If your arguments can easily be used to justify the other side then they aren't good arguments.  You guys need to find other reasons to justify our agression besides "3000 Americans died on 9/11".  Once you come up with reasoning that justifies our actions and places us on the moral high ground then you're onto something.

-- 9/11 isn't going to do it, not when you're talking about Iraq.  We have killed more than 3000 Iraqi civilians at this point.  Arguments based on that are pure hypocrisy and do not place us on the moral high ground.

-- The evil dictator thing doesn't work.  There are lots of evil dictators still in power who aren't sitting on oil.  We shirk our World Cop duties in places like Liberia and Haiti whenever we have a chance.  That argument does not place us on the moral high ground.

Any other ideas?

well get ur conspiracy theories straight then...did we attack Iraq for pay back for 9/11? for pay back b/c Hussein tried killing Papa Bush back in the day? b/c of Oil?

and u know what? these people (if it all works out well) will be very grateful for us liberating them from a dictator...regardless of intentions...did we have our own selfish reasons for invading Iraq? sure...did it help other people? yes it did...i know of what dictators do to a country and to those oppressed by them...so in the end if there is one less dictator in the world the better...btw, many are EXTREMELY happy of the US liberating them...they much rather not have Hussein there than dealing with him and eventually his sons that would prob. following in succession...u hate Bush? good...but dont stand on a moral platform b/c u didnt vote for him or u dont agree with his administration...unfortunately many other countries dont have riches that the US can plunder using the guise of "democracy", luckily Iraq did..and now after June..they can begin to build their nation...the way THEY want it to be made...

[Guest JMT]

its not that cut and dry.

if Saddam did have WMDs or was manufacturing them, he would use them.

those places are just going through civil strife. you keep forgetting that Iraq was not complying with the treaties set up as a result of the first war.

and they are find more Al Queda hiding in Iraq all the time, do you think Saddam wouldnt support or encourage them if he still ran the country? its not good enough to try and punish terrorist AFTER the fact.

[bornslippy22]

if Saddam did have WMDs or was manufacturing them, he would use them.

but again..it doesnt matter if he had them and shipped them to Syria or whatever else theory people wanna throw into the discusion...they werent there when we went in and we have egg all over our face...but again, this many was such a douchebag, that i dont lose any sleep knowing that he is out of power...

[Guest saintjohn]

i DONT think diplomacy would have worked at that point...the Emperor was pretty set in his ways

actually, it was the japanese military that was determined to fight on. it was only because of the emperor's direct intervention that japan finally surrendered.

[Guest endymion]

the US doesnt intentionally kill civilians.

Well yeah, we do. I have plenty of confirmed reports to show you. The US has a long, proud history of killing innocent civilians, including American civilians. One of the favorites that Republicans like to use in supporting Bush against Saddam is that he "killed his own people". Sad to report that we have done lots and lots of that too.

Nobody knows exactly how many American civilians Sherman killed in South Carolina and Georgia because he intentionally didn't keep records. Look at what he did and you see that it's probably over 3000 civilians killed. He mounted a prolonged seige of the city of Atlanta that involved firing artillery directly into civilian areas. Once he took Atlanta his men burned half of the city, including civilian buildings with no military value. He destroyed every structure that he could find between him and the Atlantic after that, including basically the entire city of Savannah.

He kept records on his own men getting hurt, but anybody he killed on the other side didn't count. Especially if they were black. Sound familiar? Here's a precious quote from that Republican Party war hero: "in war,...everything is right which prevents anything. If bridges are burned, I’ve got a right to burn all the houses near it, and Goddamn it, I mean to do it, too" That sort of us-and-them thinking dominates the Bush adminstration's decision making process to this day.

Look up "Ebenezer Creek" in Google or something. Sherman ended up with a tail of about 25,000 blacks during his blitzkrieg through South Carolina and Georgia. Sherman considered them dead weight and he wanted to get rid of them. He knew that abandoning them would put them in danger as they would be recaptured or starve to death without the army. In crossing Ebenezer Creek he ordered his engineers to remove the fords that they had built to cross the water. Nobody even knows how many of those 25,000 black freed slaves to the rear died in the process or how many died later of starvation after being abandoned. Records were intentionally not kept but there are plenty of accounts of that incident and lots of other intentional abandonments that resulted in dead former slaves.

Oh, and Sherman used captured Confederate soldiers as human shields and landmine detectors by marching them at the front. Hundreds died, most of the names are documented.

That was 150 years ago. Fast forward 50 years to the Spanish American War. Another Republican president, Theodore Rosevelt, distracts the American public and starts a war to further the business interests of his friend, specifically William Randolph Hearst. In the aftermath of that war we killed thousands of Philipinos who didn't want us there after we got rid of the Spanish. Whatever right, they're brown? They don't really matter as much as white American males.

50 years further forward we're in WWII, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japan and in Germany.

Fast forward another 50 years. Today we're in Iraq, killing thousands of civilians there, and a good number in Afghanistan.

So how could you possibly go around telling people that the US does not kill innocent civilians? We do, and worse, to further our own interests as a matter of policy. That's truly evil. We have been rubbing out darkies to make ourselves richer for a very long time. Don't mistake Republican Party campaign jingoisms for facts.

[Guest pod]

Unfortunately, they always put a spin on the situation "collateral damage".

In WWII it was unavoidable. A B-29 loosing 50 500-pound dummy bombs from 20,000 feet up isn't what I'd call accurate. Yeah you hit the ammo plant, but ya also took out the surrounding neighborhood.

Now today, I consider collateral damage stupid and unexcusable. With military GPS and laser rangefinding being accurate down to an inch or so, from 100 miles away even, the bloody cruise missile/bomb can knock on the door before it blows up the enemy HQ. Why it would hit the home next door is beyond me. Can't our forward observers tell the difference between a house and an HQ? Here's a hint, it's the one with all the antennas on top.

Nevermind the fact that the world is watching, so any civillian deaths are reported minutes later to the people back home, via various news sources. The government may be able to push around CNN and Fox, but the word gets out anyway.

I've always been a proponent of covert operations as a tool of statecraft. The United States has some of the best covert operators in town, be it Delta, Army Rangers, SEALs, the USMC, or various other 'black' teams, a small force of ten or twenty inserted by stealth helicopter can accomplish the same goal that a normal division of troops can do. My whole logic from the get go was to take out Saddam and his government, via a series of covert operations, not a massive troop deployment putting too many troops in harm's way. Covert teams are trained to be just that, covert. Blend in with the society, make friends with the locals, all sorts of crafty stuff. Read Carl T. Stiner's and Tom Clancy's "Shadow Warriors" for a true-life overview of this 'black' world.

OK I got off the track there. In war, civillian casualties are unacceptable.

The tricky thing is, that unfortunately the other side knows this, and often will place their troops in local negihborhoods, often out of uniform. Nevermind the irregular elements like Hezbollah and so forth, which draw directly from the population. Unfortunately, that makes everyone a target, and the broadsword of the Army is ill-equipped to deal with that. Again, back to small teams of highly trained operators. Befriend the locals, teach them something they don't know, i don't know, first aid, planting crops, irrigation...basically, be their friends...next thing you know, they rat out the local Al-Qaeda cell, since you're such a nice guy for helping put food on the table.

Yeah, I read way too many books. ;D

[Guest saintjohn]

techjunkie, comparing sherman's march on atlanta to the first marine division's recent advance from kuwait into baghdad (if i understand you correctly) is both inaccurate and insulting.

civilians were not intentionally targeted in iraq. not by bush, not by centcom, and not by any decent member of the military. accidental civilian deaths are tragic, but not war crimes.

i understand and appreciate your sincere concern for innocent bystanders, but i don't think you realize the significant and positive changes that have taken place in the american military since world war two, and especially since vietnam. if you compare the russian response to chechnya to the manner in which coalition forces fought in iraq, you'll see two very different modern military doctrines in action. if you have difficulty finding much media coverage of the russian army's actions (no daily press briefings or imbedded reporters), i'll be glad to provide some informative links.

i don't think that the american military (or its current commander-in-chief) is perfect, but it's much better than it used to be. i've spent some quality time with some of this nation's best warriors, and they've earned my respect. you seem to be suggesting that they willingly carried out unlawful orders (war crimes) in iraq, and i find that offensive. if i'm over-reacting to your last post, that's why. i apologize if i've taken your comments the wrong way or out-of-context.

as for bush, you have more than enough evidence to campaign against his re-election without stooping to the bogus charge of "war criminal." that kind of language alienates many of the undecided voters you'll need to attract if you want gwb out of office. if you want to make a case that the war wasn't justified, or that it was handled poorly, fine; equating bush with teddy roosevelt isn't particularly persuasive.

in another thread, you stated your concern over some of saleen's more provocative statements, but here you seem happy to agree that "bush is a murderer." slandering the president may certainly be fashionable, but that doesn't make it right.

you're obviously a bright guy, and you're well-acquainted with some of the more reprehensible episodes in american history. i'm very interested in the evidence that you cite, but not impressed by name-calling.

the polls suggest that the upcoming election is going to be close. you may be simply posting for the hell of it, but many of the people that participate in or just lurk on this forum vote. please save the trash talk for democraticunderground, and keep arguing persuasively here.

[Guest endymion]

I really am serious. Why is a blitzkrieg that bypasses an army and targets a population center a war crime when Hitler does it but not when we do it? Why is it wrong for Osama bin Laden to take his fight to the civilians in downtown New York but it isn't wrong for Bush to take his personal vendetta about Saddam directly into the heart of Badgad in the form of 2000 pound bombs that are obviously going to kill civilians? Those 2000 pound bombs into the middle of Bagdad could have had no possible other effect than killing civilians, just like the artillery that Slobodan Milosovic pointed at downtown Sarajevo was obviously going to kill civilians. Why is one of those things right and one of those things is wrong? Patriotism is not an adequate answer to that question.

You admire the strong, smart, determined people in the armed forces in lots of countries, including our own. I do too. That's peripheral. A lot of people fall into the trap of thinking that supporting troops and supporting unjust military action are one and the same. Intentionally killing civilians because of a policy that says that all foreigners are fair targets is unjust.

[Guest pod]

I support our troops only in the sense I don't want to see them used for some useless conflict. A massive military operation was not necessary for Iraq.

Again, the aims of the mission would have best been served by special operations teams.

Of course, it's not the "proper" way to do it. The brass just wanted to put a lot of machinery and manpower out there, to justify their jobs for another few years, lest they get shafted in the next RIF.

There's historically been a big beef between the "regular" military, and the "elite" military. The regular guys think the special ops teams are dirty and dishonourable....listen, if sending two guys to shoot Saddam in the back would get the job done, I'm sending in the two guys. Quick, cost-effective, and safer.

Our guys and girls in uniform were unfortunately the victims of a bad President, and a hidebound military command structure unwilling to consider other options.