| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:44 am Post subject: History Will Not Absolve Us |
 |
|
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0735,hentoff,77643,6.html
| Quote: |
If and when there's the equivalent of an international Nuremberg trial for the American perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Guant�namo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the CIA's secret prisons, there will be mounds of evidence available from documented international reports by human-rights organizations, including an arm of the European parliament�as well as such deeply footnoted books as Stephen Grey's Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program (St. Martin's Press) and Charlie Savage's just-published Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy (Little, Brown).
While the Democratic Congress has yet to begin a serious investigation into what many European legislators already know about American war crimes, a particularly telling report by the International Committee of the Red Cross has been leaked that would surely figure prominently in such a potential Nuremberg trial...
...She quotes a former CIA officer: "When you cross over that line of darkness, it's hard to come back. You lose your soul. You can do your best to justify it, but . . . you can't go back to that dark a place without it changing you."
...Only one congressman, Oregon's Democratic senator Ron Wyden, has insisted on probing the legality of the CIA's techniques�so much so that Wyden has blocked the appointment of Bush's nominee, John Rizzo, from becoming the CIA's top lawyer. Rizzo, a CIA official since 2002, has said publicly that he didn't object to the Justice Department's 2002 "torture" memos, which allowed the infliction of pain unless it caused such injuries as "organ failure . . . or even death." (Any infliction of pain up to that point was deemed not un-American.) Mr. Rizzo would make a key witness in any future Nuremberg trial... |
Read more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The US behaves better than most during war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The US behaves better than most during war. |
Irrelevant Joo. This war is a crime. It is an act of aggression. It was illegal. It doesn't matter if Saddam was worse than Bush or anybody else. All that matters is that Bush is a horrible, horrible president that manipulated a shocked country into a war that will never be forgotten.
I agree with you that Saddam was a totally horrible person that did totally horrible things. I don't think that that makes our current situation ok. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The US behaves better than most during war. |
I believe you meant to say, or should have meant to say, "The US used to behave better than most during war."
Of course, that's only if you discount Viet Nam, the Indian Wars (inclusive), and even our own Civil War, in which, I believe, the term "Total War" was coined. See: Sherman.
I am amazed by this bizarre notion that somehow the political system in the US has somehow reached a state of perfection and is not above reproach. The men who created the nation never envisioned such an entity. Read what Jefferson has to say about a little rebellion being good medicine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The US behaves better than most during war. |
I believe you meant to say, or should have meant to say, "The US used to behave better than most during war."
Of course, that's only if you discount Viet Nam, the Indian Wars (inclusive), and even our own Civil War, in which, I believe, the term "Total War" was coined. See: Sherman.
I am amazed by this bizarre notion that somehow the political system in the US has somehow reached a state of perfection and is not above reproach. The men who created the nation never envisioned such an entity. Read what Jefferson has to say about a little rebellion being good medicine. |
who behaves better than the US during war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The US behaves better than most during war. |
Irrelevant Joo. This war is a crime. It is an act of aggression. It was illegal. It doesn't matter if Saddam was worse than Bush or anybody else. All that matters is that Bush is a horrible, horrible president that manipulated a shocked country into a war that will never be forgotten.
I agree with you that Saddam was a totally horrible person that did totally horrible things. I don't think that that makes our current situation ok. |
It is not a crime cause it saved lives.
Saddam never gave up his war so it wasn't an act of aggression.
If Saddam had quit probably there would have not been any war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, it kinda moved lives around. Took a couple from here and saved a few over there.
But accepting your point to be true, I do not believe that I have ever come across a law that says that savings lives absolves one from the criminal responsibility of directly taking others.
I don't really feel like getting into this. My mind ain't gonna change and neither is yours. We must agree to disagree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Well, it kinda moved lives around. Took a couple from here and saved a few over there.
But accepting your point to be true, I do not believe that I have ever come across a law that says that savings lives absolves one from the criminal responsibility of directly taking others.
I don't really feel like getting into this. My mind ain't gonna change and neither is yours. We must agree to disagree. |
Was Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in 1979 wrong? Musta killed a lot of innocent people? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Was Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in 1979 wrong? Musta killed a lot of innocent people?
|
As I pointed out a few years back, Cambodia had violated Vietnamese territory prior to the invasion. Vietnam did not go to war for humanitarian reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
It is not a crime cause it saved lives.
Saddam never gave up his war so it wasn't an act of aggression.
If Saddam had quit probably there would have not been any war. |
You'd make for a lovely intelligent design supporter. No amount of reality will make you stray from your path. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
It is not a crime cause it saved lives.
Saddam never gave up his war so it wasn't an act of aggression.
If Saddam had quit probably there would have not been any war. |
You'd make for a lovely intelligent design supporter. No amount of reality will make you stray from your path. |
Well I won't get any reality from you cause you are ignorant. Really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
Was Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in 1979 wrong? Musta killed a lot of innocent people?
|
As I pointed out a few years back, Cambodia had violated Vietnamese territory prior to the invasion. Vietnam did not go to war for humanitarian reasons. |
They went to war for strategic reasons.
Cambodia wasn't much a threat to them. Vietnam took advantage of the situation. Nevertheless the result of the war was a good thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
During the First Indochina War, when Vietnam and Cambodia allied against the French, Vietnamese forces had made great use of Cambodian territory in transporting weapons, supplies, and troops. This relationship lasted through the Vietnam War, and even after the war, people from both countries commonly crossed the border unhindered.
Even before the Vietnam War had ended, the relationship between the Khmer Rouge and Vietnam was strained. Clashes between Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge forces began as early as 1974. The Khmer Rouge demanded that the Mekong Delta area be returned to Cambodia, and that all Vietnamese leave this area. The Vietnamese refused these demands since the Mekong Delta had been Vietnamese territory for nearly three centuries. In retaliation, thousands of Vietnamese were either executed or forced out of Cambodia, and villages along the border were attacked. This led to further escalation of the conflict and ultimately to the Vietnamese invasion and occupation of Cambodia.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian-Vietnamese_War |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Cambodia wasn't much a threat to them. |
From my post above...
| Quote: |
| The Khmer Rouge demanded that the Mekong Delta area be returned to Cambodia, and that all Vietnamese leave this area. The Vietnamese refused these demands since the Mekong Delta had been Vietnamese territory for nearly three centuries. In retaliation, thousands of Vietnamese were either executed or forced out of Cambodia, and villages along the border were attacked. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
During the First Indochina War, when Vietnam and Cambodia allied against the French, Vietnamese forces had made great use of Cambodian territory in transporting weapons, supplies, and troops. This relationship lasted through the Vietnam War, and even after the war, people from both countries commonly crossed the border unhindered.
Even before the Vietnam War had ended, the relationship between the Khmer Rouge and Vietnam was strained. Clashes between Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge forces began as early as 1974. The Khmer Rouge demanded that the Mekong Delta area be returned to Cambodia, and that all Vietnamese leave this area. The Vietnamese refused these demands since the Mekong Delta had been Vietnamese territory for nearly three centuries. In retaliation, thousands of Vietnamese were either executed or forced out of Cambodia, and villages along the border were attacked. This led to further escalation of the conflict and ultimately to the Vietnamese invasion and occupation of Cambodia.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian-Vietnamese_War |
Ok Cambodia was more of a threat never the less Vietnam had them completely out matched. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
