|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rekna
So I committed a fopah tonight at a bar when I said "Bush is the worst thing for this country since Adolf Hitler".
My argument was that I said "since" meaning Bush isn't as bad as Hitler but there hasn't been anything worse since Hitler. Some people took this to mean "Bush is as bad as Hitler". I'm wondering if what all of you think, is this statement Out of line? True, but still out of line, True and not out of line, or False Bush is worse than Hitler?
|
Rekna, tell "some people" to read the following and ST-hey-U... Morally and legally, your opinion seems to be on firm footing. Our government was part of a 1945 international tribunal of allies who hung to death, leaders of another country who did what is described in the following two quote boxes, as official US policy. After it was described by the US president, it was carried out, and we all know the outcome, whether impeachment is "on the table" or not:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020601-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 1, 2002
President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point
United States Military Academy
The President:
....Homeland defense and missile defense are part of stronger security, and they're essential priorities for America. Yet the war on terror <h3>will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. (Applause.)</h3> In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act. (Applause.)
Our security will require the best intelligence, to reveal threats hidden in caves and growing in laboratories. Our security will require modernizing domestic agencies such as the FBI, so they're prepared to act, and act quickly, against danger. Our security will require transforming the military you will lead -- a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, <h3>to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives. (Applause.).....</h3>
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060320-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2006
President Discusses War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom
.....Q Mr. President, at the beginning of your talk today you mentioned that you understand why Americans have had their confidence shaken by the events in Iraq. ....Before we went to war in Iraq we said there were three main reasons for going to war in Iraq: ....All three of those turned out to be false. My question is, how do we restore confidence that Americans may have in their leaders and to be sure that the information they are getting now is correct?
THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. (Applause.) First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was a state sponsor of terror -- by the way, not declared a state sponsor of terror by me, but declared by other administrations. We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. .....but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America....
...When he didn't disclose, and when he didn't disarm, and when he deceived inspectors, it sent a very disconcerting <h3>message to me, whose job it is to protect the American people and to take threats before they fully materialize.</h3> My view is, he was given the choice of whether or not he would face reprisal. It was his decision to make. And so he chose to not disclose, not disarm, as far as everybody was concerned. ......
|
<h3>This is an example of why preemptive war is both foolish and the ulitmate "crime against humanity".</h3>
Quote:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...ves/14872.html
Keeping the al Qaeda report under wraps
Posted March 12th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Share This | Spotlight | Permalink
Following up on an item from yesterday, the Pentagon has prepared a new report on non-existent ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime. The document is the culmination of an exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion. Not surprisingly, officials <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/29959.html">discovered what we already knew</a> — there was no “direct operational link” between Hussein’s Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion.
Obviously, this is at least mildly embarrassing for the Bush administration, given that they made frequent efforts to connect Saddam to al Qaeda before the invasion, in order to sell the war to the public. But how far would the Bush gang go to <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/rapidreport/2008/03/pentagon-report.html">conceal its humiliation?</a>
The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report’s release <h3>and will no longer make the report available online.</h3>
The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.
It won’t be emailed to reporters and it won’t be posted online.
Hmm. They scheduled its release, then cancelled it. They scheduled a briefing, then cancelled it, too. And if asked, I’m certain Dana Perino would insist, with a mostly straight face, that the White House never contacted the Pentagon about this, and it was solely the decision of military officials, who, for whatever reason, preferred to hide its own report.
And no one will believe her.
|
<h3>Here is President Eisenhower's opinion of President Bush's war policY:</h3>
Quote:
http://www.dbms.com/
All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time... I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.
[Dwight D. Eisenhower, Press conference, 1953]
|
THe chief uS prosecutor at Nuremberg, SCOTUS Chief Justice Robert Jackson, described aggressive, preemptive war as the "ultimate crime against humanity":
Quote:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judnazi.htm
.....THE COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSIVE WAR
The Tribunal now turns to the consideration of the Crimes against peace charged in the Indictment. Count One of the Indictment charges the defendants with conspiring or having a common plan to commit crimes against peace.
Count Two of the Indictment charges the defendants with committing specific crimes against peace by planning, preparing, initiating, and waging wars of aggression against a number of other States. It will be convenient to consider the question of the existence of a common plan and the question of aggressive war together, and to deal later in this Judgment with the question of the individual responsibility of the defendants.
The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.
<h3>To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.</h3>
The first acts of aggression referred to in the Indictment are the seizure of Austria and Czechoslovakia and the first war of aggression charged in the Indictment is the war against Poland begun on the 1st September, 1939.....
|
Quote:
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/...erg-trials.htm
The Holocaust and the Nuremberg Trials
by Benjamin B. Ferencz, December 8, 2005
The greatest tribute we can pay to the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust and similar tragedies is never to stop trying to make this a more humane and peaceful world. The United Nations Charter of June 1945, expressed the determination "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." Its Preamble spoke of the equality of nations large and small. It called for enhanced social justice, tolerance and respect for international law.....
...The Mentality of Mass Murderers
...According to Ohlendorf, <h2>it was known that the Soviets planned total war against Germany. A German preemptive strike was better than waiting to be attacked....</h2>
....The three experienced American judges concluded that a preemptive strike as anticipatory self-defense was not a valid legal justification for mass murder. <h3>If every nation could decide for itself when to attack a presumed enemy, and when to engage in total war, the rule of law would be destroyed and the world would be destroyed with it. All of the defendants were convicted; thirteen were sentenced to death and Ohlendorf was hanged.</h3> I was then 27 years old and it was my first case. The ideals that I then expressed have remained with me all of my life.
HOW FAR HAVE WE COME?....
<h3>....It is not permissible "self-defense" to slaughter "the other" -- it is the crime of murder.</h3>
Aggression, according to the Nuremberg judges and other precedents, is "the supreme international crime" since it includes all the other crimes. There can be no war without atrocities and unauthorized warfare in violation of the UN Charter is the biggest atrocity of all. The best way to protect the lives of courageous young people who serve in the military is to avoid war-making itself......
<i>Benjamin B. Ferencz, a member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's Advisory Council, was Chief Prosecutor in the Nuremberg war crimes trial against Nazi extermination squads.</i>
|
Quote:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0407-10.htm
....To treat the United Nations with contempt today is to betray the American soldiers who gave their lives for a more peaceful, democratic world. The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, the doctrine under which our troops now occupy Iraq, was explicitly repudiated by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal in 1946. As a presiding Judge between 1945 and 1949, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote: "War is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy." The Tribunal concluded: "To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." In 1953 when his advisors mentioned the concept of pre-emptive war, President Dwight Eisenhower (who led the military campaign against Hitler in Europe), remarked: "All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler...I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."
|
Last edited by host; 03-13-2008 at 02:09 AM..
|