Arrest Bush and Chenney

[Doreen Peri]

Yeah, XP, I haven't been able to understand Tony's odd twist of calling you guys "Bush lovers." That's clearly not the case.

Seems to me we all agree that he should be held accountable. The only disagreement I'm reading is about how and when and what importance it holds in regards to immediate action.

Maybe I'm reading all of the posts wrong (and I admit I haven't read this entire thread), but that's how I see the gist of it.

In my opinion, though we definitely DO need to move forward and focus on fixing a multi-faceted HUGE mess, we CAN walk and chew gum at the same time and some energy should be expended in holding him and his administration accountable for lying to the American people by offering false pretenses to bomb a country and occupy it. Lives, after all, have been lost and for what?

Plus there's the large matter of the US Constitution. If we allow them slip off into history without even addressing the unconstitutional crimes, what does that say about our Constitution?

Clinton got impeached and tried for lying to a Grand Jury about having sex with a White House intern.

You'd think Bush's lies would be MUCH more important than THAT!

[Nazz]

Plus there's the large matter of the US Constitution. If we allow them slip off into history without even addressing the unconstitutional crimes, what does that say about our Constitution?

Clinton got impeached and tried for lying to a Grand Jury about having sex with a White House intern.

You'd think Bush's lies would be MUCH more important than THAT!

You would think so, wouldn't you?! That was one of the major contributors to my loss of respect for right-wing politicos in the past decade. Talk about hypocrisy! Good points, Doreen.

[XPress]

Seems to me we all agree that he should be held accountable. The only disagreement I'm reading is about how and when and what importance it holds in regards to immediate action.

I think that puts it quite neatly, it really is all about fine detail, context, and those fuzzy things.

How much should we lean this way, how much should we lean that way, how much emphasis on this element, how much emphasis on that element.

I guess in legal parlance, it's like a panel of judges, who have reached their verdict, who are now bickering over what degree of importance should be given to the mitigating circumstances, how far reaching our ruling should be, and whether it should be a ten year, ten years and one month, or ten years and two month sentance that's handed down.

[tonyc]

doreen peri

I would think that he should be held accountable for a lot of deaths... but millions??? geez..... where do you get your figures?

Right here..
these are just the "documented deaths" 91,060 – 99,433
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Now add on the U.S. Confirmed Deaths
Reported Deaths: 4256
Confirmed Deaths: 4254
http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx

Right there is a million "verified... deaths"
here's another survey..
Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict. August 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Following are the latest figures for soldiers and civilians killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003:
U.S.-LED COALITION FORCES:
United States 4,256
Britain 179
Other nations 139
IRAQIS:Military Between 4,900 and 6,375#
Civilians Between 91,060 and 99,433*
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GCA- ... U220090308

These numbers don't include "enemy" deaths or others killed from coincidentals.. or collateral incidents outside of Iraq
I've seen other polls that put the figure at over 3 million..I'll see if I can find it

[XPress]

And now the US wants to ramp up its militarism in Afghanistan once again. It's Obama this time, not Bush.

I read an article, must be close to a year ago now, so I can't remember where, or who by, but they said if the Democrats got in (we didn't know who the nominee would be at the time), that there wouldn't be a pull out from both Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Their logic stated that there would still be enough hawks around that you'd have to horse trade one, to get the other, and seeing as the public saw more justification in Afghanistan, than Iraq, that, should the Democrats get elected, you'd possibly see a pull out of Iraq, and a step up in Afghanistan.

I don't know how much that was based on information, facts and data, and how much of it was a 'lucky guess', but I do find it disturbing to think that there is even a possibility that lot of people may die in the next few years, not because of some noble ideal, but because some one wanted to horse trade their way out of Iraq, because the Iraq war was politically unpopular.

We need to "win" in Afghanistan, but no one can tell us what "winning" means, or how many troops it will realistically take, or how much it will cost and how long it will take.

Is there really an answer?

Afghanistan is symbolic, people mention the soviet union, but it's been going on much longer than that, Afghanistan was a buffer state in "The Great Game", of the late 19th, and early 20th century, and it was part of the Persian empire before that, and...

I guess, because it's considered a crossroads between the East and the West, and borders South and Central Asia and the Middle East, it's considered "strategically important", although in this modern, one button kills 'em all, world, of screaching jets, stealth fighters, satellites, and the internet, I'm not sure how "strategically important" it really is these days, beyond the symbolic.

Most of Al-Qaeda , seem to be in Pakistan, North Africa, or the far east now, so I don't really think much of the original justifications, that might have been argued, really stand up now (we didn't attack the Taliban because they blew up Afghanis, beat women, exported opium, or stoned people to death for playing soccer, just for saying no to the west).

So, as you rightly ask, what does it take?

Well, spin it around, what would it take for you to happily accept Afghani rule, over your village, for the rest of eternity?

It's not going to happen, is it?

So there won't be a "victory", it's never going to happen, the people will never be happy.

There maybe quieter times, and more violent times, which I guess could be a factor, in answering your question, I guess "victory" could come when America can diplomatically withdraw, without looking defeated, whilst claiming they've made the place more "peaceful", and more "stable", and when they don't need a "strategic" presence in the region?

[Nazz]

I do find it disturbing to think that there is even a possibility that lot of people may die in the next few years, not because of some noble ideal, but because some one wanted to horse trade their way out of Iraq, because the Iraq war was politically unpopular.

Agree with that.

I don't really think much of the original justifications, that might have been argued, really stand up now.

Then why go back in? See, I'm hearing language like "we can't afford to fail" against "our enemies", or "we must defeat those who would do us harm", etc., etc. I don't hear this escalation sold so much as global altruism, but more like we must go back and get the bad guys who want to hurt us. It all sounds very Iraq to me at this point. The Taliban either pose a real threat to us now or they don't. Which is it? Or are we convinced the war has to be fought on some higher, more abstract ideological level, such as "spreading democracy and freedom" and "liberating" the Afghanis? Again, that all sounds very neo-connish Iraq to me.

we didn't attack the Taliban because they blew up Afghanis, beat women, exported opium, or stoned people to death for playing soccer, just for saying no to the west.

I thought it was because at one point in time they allegedly harbored al Qaeda, most notably the 9/11 attackers. If that no longer is true, which you seem to suggest in your comments, then why is it necessary to re-invade for security reasons? And if it's not so much about any sort of imminent threat per se but more about international altruism and justice, possibly even in the world's best interest to stabilize or "fix" Afghanistan somehow, then why can't we at least try to get a more legitimate and true international coalition together to do the job?

I guess "victory" could come when America can diplomatically withdraw, without looking defeated, whilst claiming they've made the place more "peaceful", and more "stable", and when they don't need a "strategic" presence in the region?

Yes, but I think it's more than a fair question to ask if "saving face" should, in effect, be the primary driver in this redeployment. And "needing a strategic presence in the region" is of course a loaded question. Hawks and defense contractors never met a strategic presence they didn't lust after.

[XPress]

I don't really think much of the original justifications, that might have been argued, really stand up now.

Then why go back in? See, I'm hearing language like "we can't afford to fail" against "our enemies", or "we must defeat those who would do us harm", etc., etc. I don't hear this escalation sold so much as global altruism, but more like we must go back and get the bad guys who want to hurt us. It all sounds very Iraq to me at this point. The Taliban either pose a real threat to us now or they don't. Which is it? Or are we convinced the war has to be fought on some higher, more abstract ideological level, such as "spreading democracy and freedom" and "liberating" the Afghanis? Again, that all sounds very neo-connish Iraq to me.

I used to have an elderly aunt, when faced with political contradictions who would just shrug and say "Politics is politics..."

I wrote in another thread, before I even found this thread:

"There are only two options in politics, there is the party that offers you more of the same, and there is the party that offers you less of the same, which is more of the same, but just less of it.

If you vote for the party that offers you less of the same, upon being elected and faced with the reality of the machine, they modify their position to give you more of the same, and if you vote for the party offering you more of the same, because they've invariably run out of steam, they actually end up offering you less of the same, which is more of the same, but just less of it.

The only real positive change that has come about in the last 60 years has been brought about by people who have opted out of this system, and those who did facilitate change, and then later joined, or re-joined the sytem, invariably spent the remainder of their careers underming all they did whilst outside of the system, which can lead us to only one conclusion, and that is that it is the system that is wrong.

The system that exists is one, where a vote for anyone, is a vote for more, or less, the same, whether it be more of the same, or less of the same, which is more of the same, just less of it."

Maybe I'm the oldest, and most cynical teenager ever to set foot on the planet, but I do really see very little difference between the current right and left, they are only slight variations within a tiny spectrum, so I'm really not surprised when offered change to find more, or less, of the same.

we didn't attack the Taliban because they blew up Afghanis, beat women, exported opium, or stoned people to death for playing soccer, just for saying no to the west.

I thought it was because at one point in time they allegedly harbored al Qaeda, most notably the 9/11 attackers.

Yes, and no, yes, we attacked because they harbored Al-Qaeda members, but not so much because they harbored them, but more because they refused to surrender them.

Which they claimed was justified as there is, strictly speaking, no Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda like to describe themselves as a "movement" that acts as an "umbrella" for many sunni mulsims (yes, we kicked out the Shia in Iraq, to put the Sunni's in power, I too see the irony), and the Talibans claim was that they couldn't just hand people over, with no justification, for subscribing to a "movement".

Some people may argue that's justified, after all, how would you feel about your government, handing you over to another country, because you were a Democrat, and some members of the Democrat party, (like some members of the Weathermen, for example) had commited terrorist acts, or, because you were a Republican, and some members of the Republican party, (like some of the Brüder Schweigen) had commited terrorist acts?

Others would argue that virtually every member of Al-Qaeda was, at the very least, an extremist, so there was no justification in refusing to co-operate.

Chose your poison.

The Taliban chose not to co-operate, and so America rolled into town.

If that no longer is true, which you seem to suggest in your comments, then why is it necessary to re-invade for security reasons?

Widely speaking it's accepted that the main cells of Al-Qaeda are no longer in the region, although some exist on the Pakistan border, and in west Pakistan, but, if security, from terrorists was your prime concern you'd probably be in North Africa, or Indonesia right now, so... well, make of that what you will, I'm sure 9/11 will be cited as a factor, for any further activity, but if I had to rate it as a "genuine" reason I'd rate it fairly low.

And if it's not so much about any sort of imminent threat per se but more about international altruism and justice, possibly even in the world's best interest to stabilize or "fix" Afghanistan somehow, then why can't we at least try to get a more legitimate and true international coalition together to do the job?

Because just about no one else is going to buy that now?

Maybe in the early days, you might of, and did have, some degree of international sympathy, but today, in reality, you'd probably get a greater international consensus on Iraq, than Afghanistan, and a) You ain't going to get that, and b) The only reason Iraq is a player, is because of the turmoil caused by the US invasion.

I guess "victory" could come when America can diplomatically withdraw, without looking defeated, whilst claiming they've made the place more "peaceful", and more "stable", and when they don't need a "strategic" presence in the region?

Yes, but I think it's more than a fair question to ask if "saving face" should, in effect, be the primary driver in this redeployment.

In my opinion, saving face should never be a driver in any action that leads to wide spread death, and misery, but sadly I'm sure it is a major motivator in all this.

And "needing a strategic presence in the region" is of course a loaded question. Hawks and defense contractors never met a strategic presence they didn't lust after.

Indeed, which is why "profitability" along with "saving face" are probably much more likely contributing factors, with regards to answering your question, than any "human" answer.

It does sort of bring us hurtling back towards being on topic, because it's really more of the same, and brings up a few of the points already raised, not least the ability to blame anyone, for anything, should you wish to.

As long as people WANT Afghanistan to be a going concern, it will be, and they will always be able to find a reason, even if it's tenuous at best.

As long as there is reasonable suspicion, that at least one person, might harbor extremist views, in Afghanistan (and there's plenty that do) you have all the political firepower you need, to carry out your actions, for whatever reasons you're really carrying them out for.

[Lightning Rod]

I'm friends with George Bush on Facebook

yeah, he doesn't live very far from me
saw him on his bike the other day
I asked him, "George, what are you going to be doing as an ex-pres? Humanitarian work? Advocacy? Memoir?"
He thought a minute and said, "I was thinkin' about Dancin' With the Stars...hehe."

[stilltrucking]

LR, that is the best thing I have read on this thread

You know what

I believe it. I believe I will see George W Bush on Dancing with the Stars before I see him in The Hague.

Well maybe we could kidnap him and take him there.
Extrodinary rendition, would that be poetic justice?

Arendt gives the disturbing implication that as long as this desire for vengeance, thinly disguised as a quest for justice, was met, all other imbalances in the trial are justified. In other words, the desire for the end accepts anything necessary to achieve it.

The banality of evil

gracias

[tonyc]

Bush will go down, it'll take some time to distance ourselves from his puppets, magicians and other fences..but the day will come when justice will prevail.
There is no statue of limitations of war crimes.
I wouldn't be surprised if another nation indicts him if we don't...King Bush isn't a God. It would be ironic if Iraq pulls the "shock and awe" stunt Texas and they find the stuttering monkey hiding in a spider hole
Now that would be true justice!!

[stilltrucking]

but the day will come when justice will prevail.

“Isn’t it pretty to think so?” –Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also ...

I hope you are right.

sincerely
jt

[XPress]

Bush will go down, it'll take some time to distance ourselves from his puppets, magicians and other fences..but the day will come when justice will prevail.
There is no statue of limitations of war crimes.
I wouldn't be surprised if another nation indicts him if we don't...King Bush isn't a God. It would be ironic if Iraq pulls the "shock and awe" stunt Texas and they find the stuttering monkey hiding in a spider hole
Now that would be true justice!!

Tony, please don't take this the wrong way, but when I read your posts what I see (and I say it's what I see, not necessarily what is there), I see this almost "frothing at the mouth, boderline-extremist, with a burning effigy of Bush, hanging from a stick, that you're beating with your shoe, as you scream, and wail".

I think I see that as your posts are so full of vitriol, exageration, deception, lies (which is amusing, in a dark way, as you so often attack Bush for doing the same thing), spin, anger, manipulation, and misrepresentation, and your arguments are one-dimensional, and based around a policy of hate, which is the sort of thing I expect from extremists, as it fits the cartoon stereotype of them.

You've said in this thread that you "vote in all elections", and also that you don't support Bush, and you don't support neo-cons, but then you also said that "Obama's obviousy in someones back pocket", and that you warn people about him too.

You also said you're an "internet warrior", who is on "every forum on the net (been banned from most by now)", so you don't support the Republicans, and you don't support the Democrats, but you do vote every time, although your political activism is confined to getting yourself banned from internet forums, for attacking other people?

So help me see the "real" Tony, beyond the one dimensional stereotype Tony, that presents himself in this thread.

If you're voting "in all elections", and you're not voting Republican, and you're not voting Democrat, which minor 3rd party, or independent candidates are you voting for?

If you want to change the world, with a revolutionary new product, you got to sell it to your audience. If the world doesn't know what you're selling, then you ain't selling nothing!

If all you do is attack Bush, and Obama supporters on the internet, in such a way that gets you banned from everywhere, and you're not even promoting your own candidates, or views, arn't you really achieving nothing, and if you're acheiving nothing, aren't you really a part of the problem, rather than part of the solution?

Help me out here, Tony, reveal yourself to me, so I can see that I have it all wrong, and that you're an all singing, all dancing, regular guy, and not a one dimensional, one man, internet hate machine, because I'm sure that's not what you really are, merely the false impression you've given off in this thread to me.

[tonyc]

XPress

Tony, please don't take this the wrong way but when I read your posts what I see (and I say it's what I see, not necessarily what is there), I see this almost "frothing at the mouth, boderline-extremist, with a burning effigy of Bush, hanging from a stick, that you're beating with your shoe, as you scream, and wail".

Very good, you see exactly what I'm trying to communicate.

I think I see that as your posts are so full of vitriol, exageration, deception, lies (which is amusing, in a dark way, as you so often attack Bush for doing the same thing), spin, anger, manipulation, and misrepresentation, and your arguments are one-dimensional, and based around a policy of hate, which is the sort of thing I expect from extremists, as it fits the cartoon stereotype of them.

I could really care what you think, in fact if you quit spinning and twisting my words, you'd see that I never asked.

So help me see the "real" Tony, beyond the one dimensional stereotype Tony, that presents himself in this thread.

Naw, that's alright, you're not my type.

Help me out here, Tony, reveal yourself to me,

Why are you gay?
Sorry dude, but I'm into women...(hell I feel like I'm being hyptnotized)

so I can see that I have it all wrong,

Sorry dude, you have it exactly right and I could care less what you think or "see"

that you're an all singing, all dancing, regular guy

Ummm, excuse me, but you just described a queer.

not a one dimensional, one man, internet hate machine,

Sorry man, but that's exactly what I am, is that a problem? (hey, I like that, think I'll use it in my sig, thanks dude.)

Maybe it's me, but why would I care what a total stranger thinks about me? Is there some law somewhere that we all should be mild mannered, singing, happy ball room dancing , merry men.
Got an idea...if what I type offends you, don't read it. (brilliant huh?)
So back to topic....it would be soooo cool if Iraq "shocked and awed" Texas and pulled the dry drunk, money grabbing liar, silverspoon retard out of a spider hole....I'd laugh until I herniated

[XPress]

Very good, you see exactly what I'm trying to communicate.

So you see yourself pretty much like you see Bush?

It's self loathing then?

I could really care what you think, in fact if you quit spinning and twisting my words, you'd see that I never asked.

I've never once twisted or spun your words, Tony, as well you know, it's rather sad you feel this compulsion to lie so often.

Naw, that's alright, you're not my type.

It wasn't a sexual advance, Tony

Why are you gay?
Sorry dude, but I'm into women...(hell I feel like I'm being hyptnotized)

What's with the repeated homosexual imagery?

Is it a homophobic attempt to insult, or repressed homosexuality?

Ummm, excuse me, but you just described a queer.

There you go again, Tony, what is it with all the jew, and queer comments?

If you won't "reveal" the real you, then all I can see is this one dimensional "hate character", full of homophobic, and anti-semitic commentary.

You do portray yourself more and more like a Duke-ite with every post, whether it's your intention, or not.

Sorry man, but that's exactly what I am, is that a problem?

Well, yes, as it undermines your entire argument.

You rail against the world, but you offer nothing.

Scroll back through the thread, and see where all the discussion takes place about shared responsability, and yet here you are, ashamed of your own political view point (I notice you dodged giving your colors), and ready to admit you offer nothing.

Many people have asked in this thread, how did Bush get elected?

Well, it was the millions of Tony's that got him elected.

Those that felt that screaming on the internet, insulting people, and offering no alternatives, was better than getting up off their backsides and trying to make a difference in the world, or offer a real alternative.

Maybe it's me, but why would I care what a total stranger thinks about me?

Because you're just one person, and it takes 60 million + people to elect a President?

If you just come across as a one-dimensional hate character, who does nothing but insult, and lie, then you lose the argument, and you fail to build a credible alternative.

Look at this thread as a perfect example, the most unpopular President in history, now, mounting a campaign against him should be childs play, but some how you've managed to fumble the ball, and even get people offside, on what's a simple shoe-in of an issue.

That's why you should care, that's if you are really bothered about Bush, as oppossed to just hating, for the sake of hate.

Is there some law somewhere that we all should be mild mannered, singing, happy ball room dancing , merry men.

I don't think anyones suggested there is, or there should be.

You're making up strawmen again, Tony.

Got an idea...if what I type offends you, don't read it. (brilliant huh?)

Not really, as it doesn't address anything, it's just a rather weak attempt at a "fuck you", because you're afraid to discuss your own views.

Why are you so ashamed of your own political views, Tony, and you must be, because you're afraid to admit them, all you have the courage to do is attack other peoples, while hiding your own in shame.

That's a cowards way, it's sort of like a little seven year old saying "Your team sucks!", but then when asked what his team is, he runs away.

[Nazz]

not a one dimensional, one man, internet hate machine,

Sorry man, but that's exactly what I am, is that a problem? (hey, I like that, think I'll use it in my sig, thanks dude.)

Well that at least explains all the smear, name-calling and laughable pretensions of "debate". Rock on, hate machine!

...it would be soooo cool if Iraq "shocked and awed" Texas and pulled the dry drunk, money grabbing liar, silverspoon retard out of a spider hole....I'd laugh until I herniated

There's always a larger picture-- and it obviously goes back way before the '04 election. Saddam was of course America's own butchering henchman for many years, so in some ways America's whole approach to world interaction has been screwed for some time. But then, the world itself has been drunk on new heights of widespread militaristic brutality for some time now as well. It's just a little ironic that you'd pick the event, or symbol, that may have been one of the only positives to come out the Iraq clusterfuck as a way to continue your lynching party. Then again, maybe not. The image of Bush being yanked outta some spider hole made for some good theater on my brain screen.