NationStates Jolt Archive

Just wondering where NSG stands on this issue. Was the Iraq war just a lie and a scam? Was it all just to get defense contracts signed? This is the view outlined in a film called "Why We Fight." Another film called "No End in Sight" also shares the same ideas.

Have a look at this to get a basic idea of what the deal is and what actually transpired:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/johnson1.html
"'From a marketing point of view,' said Andrew H. Card, Jr., the White House chief of staff on the rollout this week of the campaign for a war with Iraq, 'you don't introduce new products in August.'" New York Times, September 7, 2002

"After all, this is the guy [Saddam Hussein] who tried to kill my dad." President George W. Bush, at Houston, September 26, 2002

In the hours immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked for plans to be drawn up for an American assault on Iraq. The following day, in a cabinet meeting at the White House, Rumsfeld again insisted that Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism."(1) The president allegedly replied that "public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible," and instead chose Afghanistan as a much softer target.

These statements and their timing, are noteworthy because the United States had not even determined that the suicide bombers came from Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network and it has never published any evidence that al-Qaeda had any connection with Iraq. In fact, the 2001 edition of the U.S. Department of State's annual report on Patterns of Global Terrorism does not list any acts of global terrorism linked to the government of Iraq. It was not until September 22, 2001 that Secretary of State Colin Powell promised to release to the press proof that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were guilty of planning and executing the attacks on New York and Washington, and that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN, "Clearly, we do have evidence, historical and otherwise, about the relationship of the al-Qaeda network to what happened on September 11." But such evidence has never been forthcoming. Until passenger manifests revealed that the airliner hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia, I myself thought that the attacks could be blowback from American policies in any number of places. Rumsfeld's early targeting of Iraq therefore suggests that the Bush administration has had a hidden agenda.



More info (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174982/chalmers_johnson_the_pentagon_bailout_fraud)


Dont forget, Dick Cheney was the CEO of Haliburton from 1995 to 2005. (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0403-10.htm)

Should this be looked into a little further by the current administration to see if we were scammed?

playing with the media and going to war are not war crimes.


now the water boarding and other gitmo stuff there is a lot more room to argue on.

playing with the media and going to war are not war crimes.


now the water boarding and other gitmo stuff there is a lot more room to argue on.

I was about to say that, ya bastard.

EDIT: Except to say that, like everyone else, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, we should take them to court, and see if the court thinks they're guilty of such crimes, based on the evidence.

I was about to say that, ya bastard.

EDIT: Except to say that, like everyone else, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, we should take them to court, and see if the court thinks they're guilty of such crimes, based on the evidence.

It is not worth taking them to trial yet. too much calssfied information they can play games with.

It is not worth taking them to trial yet. too much calssfied information they can play games with.

Hmm, valid.

However, they should be brought to trial as expediently as practical.

Not war criminals.

Hmm, valid.

However, they should be brought to trial as expediently as practical.

It will be a decade atleast.

It will be a decade atleast.

hmmm... wasn't it 75 years or so before documents become declassified?

hmmm... wasn't it 75 years or so before documents become declassified?

but they can expedite it based off circumstances.
I think about a decade before it is safe to declassify the info.

It is not worth taking them to trial yet. too much calssfied information they can play games with.

That can easily be bypassed cant it? What exactly is there to classify in this regard? We have shown the world a lot of our weapons already. All that's really needed to know is why plans were drawn so quickly after 9-11. The reason given for Iraq was WMDs. (yet the hijacked planes did not have chems, bios or nukes, nor were they used by Saddam since the 1980s (chems)...NOT EVEN DURING THE GULF WAR OF THE 90s!!!)

That can easily be bypassed cant it? What exactly is there to classify in this regard? We have shown the world a lot of our weapons already. All that's really needed to know is why plans were drawn so quickly after 9-11. The reason given for Iraq was WMDs. (yet the hijacked planes did not have chems, bios or nukes, nor were they used by Saddam since the 1980s (chems)...NOT EVEN DURING THE GULF WAR OF THE 90s!!!)

The war itself is not a war crime.
you might be able to get perjury for lying to congress(or what ever it is when you lie to congress).
but to prove he knew it was a lie you would need lots of classified information. Even more so when just before the bush reelection Bill Clinton was on tonight show saying how he knew there were WMDs in Iraq and his bombing must have got them.

chem and Bio weapons were likely not used during gulf war I because
1. Bush Senior told Saddam just before the war you use those on our troops and I will turn your country into a glass parking lot.
2. Bio and chem weapons lose a lot of their effectiveness on trained troops from a developed country.
They put on the protective suits and treat with antibiotics/antivirals/anti nerve agent/etc.

The war itself is not a war crime.
you might be able to get perjury for lying to congress(or what ever it is when you lie to congress).
Yes that would have to be where it would start.


but to prove he knew it was a lie you would need lots of classified information. Even more so when just before the bush reelection Bill Clinton was on tonight show saying how he knew there were WMDs in Iraq and his bombing must have got them.

All Bush and his administration has to show is why he thought Saddam had WMDs. The one with the most military experience during those meetings was Colin Powell. He was against the Iraq invasion but they wouldnt listen to him.

chem and Bio weapons were likely not used during gulf war I because
1. Bush Senior told Saddam just before the war you use those on our troops and I will turn your country into a glass parking lot.



But Muslim extremists live to be martyred. It is a great honor to them. Plus Saddam DID choses to hide in that dirty hole (where he was captured) rather than use a WMD during this current war. Then he was hung and STILL no WMDs used against our troops or found. He just played a ruse so other Middle East nations would think he had them and leave his nation alone.

2. Bio and chem weapons lose a lot of their effectiveness on trained troops from a developed country.
They put on the protective suits and treat with antibiotics/antivirals/anti nerve agent/etc.

Well if he was somehow 100% convinced that whatever chem has was suppose to have would not work at all then of course why use it? But then at many times, the man was quite desperate. Wasn't he?

Yes that would have to be where it would start.


All Bush and his administration has to show is why he thought Saddam had WMDs. The one with the most military experience during those meetings was Colin Powell. He was against the Iraq invasion but they wouldnt listen to him.
You have to show Bush did not believe there were WMDs there not that Collin Powell did not believe them there. If any single report no matter how erroneous we know it is today says they are there, Bush can say he was honestly mistaken.


But Muslim extremists live to be martyred. It is a great honor to them. Plus Saddam DID choses to hide in that dirty hole (where he was captured) rather than use a WMD during this current war. Then he was hung and STILL no WMDs used against our troops or found. He just played a ruse so other Middle East nations would think he had them and leave his nation alone.

Well if he was somehow 100% convinced that whatever chem has was suppose to have would not work at all then of course why use it? But then at many times, the man was quite desperate. Wasn't he?

The thing with Bio and Chem weapons is it would have hurt Saddam's forces more. In either gulf war. Because the US military can advance through an area contaminated by chemical or biological weapons. Where as Saddam's forces could not.
I Think Saddam had them during the first gulf war and reframed from their use because he knew to do so would get his country nuked, and would eliminate any chance of negotiation. He did keep them for a little bit after the 1st gulf war, but I think he honestly got rid of them when his son in law fled to Jordan. Only because he knew if he didn't he would be screwed.

Yes I think Bush is probably a war criminal. God willing the day will come when he sits in a cell, or at least when his crimes are officially recognized as such and the butchering of human rights and the Constitution under his administration is fully undone by people with more courage and integrity than even Obama has shown so far.

And for the record its not because he's a Republican. A Democrat who commits war crimes should meet the same fate. The sad truth is though that given the Democrat's complicity, I wouldn't be surprised if that required locking up a good chunk of the Federal Government.

Yes I think Bush is probably a war criminal. God willing the day will come when he sits in a cell, or at least when his crimes are officially recognized as such and the butchering of human rights and the Constitution under his administration is fully undone by people with more courage and integrity than even Obama has shown so far.

And for the record its not because he's a Republican. A Democrat who commits war crimes should meet the same fate. The sad truth is though that given the Democrat's complicity, I wouldn't be surprised if that required locking up a good chunk of the Federal Government.

I think Crimes against humanity mostly for the gitmo stuff. Violating Geneva convention rights and so on is more doable. But again the defenses ability to request vast amounts of classified evidence including evidence that might negatively impact members of the democratic party ability to get elected.

You have to show Bush did not believe there were WMDs there not that Collin Powell did not believe them there. If any single report no matter how erroneous we know it is today says they are there, Bush can say he was honestly mistaken.



The thing with Bio and Chem weapons is it would have hurt Saddam's forces more. In either gulf war. Because the US military can advance through an area contaminated by chemical or biological weapons. Where as Saddam's forces could not.
I Think Saddam had them during the first gulf war and reframed from their use because he knew to do so would get his country nuked, and would eliminate any chance of negotiation. He did keep them for a little bit after the 1st gulf war, but I think he honestly got rid of them when his son in law fled to Jordan. Only because he knew if he didn't he would be screwed.

You could be right about the 1st war. Guess we'll never know for sure.

One thing that could certainly cut through the red tape to get classified documents would be a possible "threat to national security" angle. We are in 2 wars so EVERY detail of "what the hell happened?" needs to be at the president's disposal.

Now Heikoku's not here maybe we can have a discussion on this without it collapsing into flames and off topic rants. Anyway, I don't think Bush et al are war criminals.

You could be right about the 1st war. Guess we'll never know for sure.

One thing that could certainly cut through the red tape to get classified documents would be a possible "threat to national security" angle. We are in 2 wars so EVERY detail of "what the hell happened?" needs to be at the president's disposal.

The president has all the information at his disposal.
It becomes declassified when the public has that information or a jury has that information.
Besides Obama seems interested in keeping the information classified.
Generally national security is the reason to keep documents classified.

Not war criminals.


I don't think Bush et al are war criminals.

Just gut feelings here? Do you think the WMD excuse was an honest mistake? We should just take their word for it and let it go at that? Even though congress has a new tradition that requires more detail when dealing with the actions of a president? (like a multi-year investigation into Bill Clinton's personal life) Where is an honest version of Ken Starr when you need one?

I remember the opinion of most Americans on this board BEFORE Bush invaded Iraq. It was entirely different as today.

I remember the opinion of most Americans on this board BEFORE Bush invaded Iraq. It was entirely different as today.

Me included! How could any of us have known? About all I cared about was what color the "terror alert" was. I feel I've been told "Look! It's the Goodyear Blimp!" Then when I looked my wallet was stolen.
:(

All Bush and his administration has to show is why he thought Saddam had WMDs. The one with the most military experience during those meetings was Colin Powell. He was against the Iraq invasion but they wouldnt listen to him.


Are you acquainted with the CIA's external review report on the matter? They found that within the agency, the cultural goal had shifted from providing accurate information, to providing information that fit a specific goal, and that they had been in such a state since the 1990's. As a result of this, CIA tended to take on a tone of seeking confirmation rather than accuracy.

From what I can tell, this was systemic throughout the entire national security apparatus. We were so grossly negligent in doing our jobs that if we worked at, say, the postal service, we'd have been fired.

*I use the term we, even though I was in High School at the time, because of my job, I'm practically tied at the hip to the USIC.

It will be a decade atleast.

Then it's not going to happen ever. Public attention spans are too short.

Me included! How could any of us have known? About all I cared about was what color the "terror alert" was. I feel I've been told "Look! It's the Goodyear Blimp!" Then when I looked my wallet was stolen.
:(

It would be nice, to search in the history of nationstates log, to see when and how people changed their mind.

I consider it as very normal that people adjust their mindset.

Just gut feelings here? Do you think the WMD excuse was an honest mistake? We should just take their word for it and let it go at that? Even though congress has a new tradition that requires more detail when dealing with the actions of a president? (like a multi-year investigation into Bill Clinton's personal life) Where is an honest version of Ken Starr when you need one?

It depends on how fast and loose you want to be with the word "honest", actually. As it's almost certain that they did, indeed consciously believe that Iraq had the weapons. What's also pretty certain is that the internal decision making processes hardly took the dreaded "WMD's" into account, rather they were concerned with other issues (not one of them related to profit, and take that moronic Chalmers Johnson quote out of your sig. The US defense budget has ever reached a trillion dollars, let alone 3/4). It was certainly dishonest, but I don't see the criminal charges.

Are you acquainted with the CIA's external review report on the matter? They found that within the agency, the cultural goal had shifted from providing accurate information, to providing information that fit a specific goal, and that they had been in such a state since the 1990's. As a result of this, CIA tended to take on a tone of seeking confirmation rather than accuracy.

From what I can tell, this was systemic throughout the entire national security apparatus. We were so grossly negligent in doing our jobs that if we worked at, say, the postal service, we'd have been fired.

*I use the term we, even though I was in High School at the time, because of my job, I'm practically tied at the hip to the USIC.

Well the 9-11 attack itself was just something that nobody thought of. Maybe with harder work a few more could have been detained but they still could have carried out some sort of attack. (impossible now of course....The passengers would beat them to smithereens)

But still, why make Iraq such a top priority so early in the game? (just hours after 9-11) Concider it, sure. But they did a tad bit more than just concider it. Didn't they? (Bush Rummy, Cheney, Rove, Rice and the rest)

It would be nice, to search in the history of nationstates log, to see when and how people changed their mind.

I consider it as very normal that people adjust their mindset.

A chart with info from all the forums and chat rooms on the web would be interesting. And remember, the term "filp-flop" was given to Kerry in 2004 because he changed his mind about Iraq before the election. People voted against him because he was right. (or they just liked to say "flip-flop") Go figure huh?

Well the 9-11 attack itself was just something that nobody thought of. Maybe with harder work a few more could have been detained but they still could have carried out some sort of attack. (impossible now of course....The passengers would beat them to smithereens)

But still, why make Iraq such a top priority so early in the game? (just hours after 9-11) Concider it, sure. But they did a tad bit more than just concider it. Didn't they? (Bush Rummy, Cheney, Rove, Rice and the rest)



Same reason that average people thought it might have been Iraq. The United States, at that point, had had long running hostility with the Hussein regime, and it made an easy heuristic to blame it on him, instead of some group that operated out of caves in a country they'd never even heard of. Further, there was a unique level of hostility between the Bush family and friends and the Hussein regime derived from the Gulf War and the associated assassination attempt against Dubya's father.

So, largely, because of contingency planning and the unclear information available at the time.

There is hardly any reason to even bother ourselves about this little tidbit. I really fail to see what it proves (other than Bush's hangup on Saddam) or creates an atmosphere indicative of war crimes.

It depends on how fast and loose you want to be with the word "honest", actually. As it's almost certain that they did, indeed consciously believe that Iraq had the weapons.
Only God knows what kind of scene Rummy and Cheney put on to convince the rest of the room. Weapons inspectors went to Iraq several times and the end result was no one got hurt.

What's also pretty certain is that the internal decision making processes hardly took the dreaded "WMD's" into account, rather they were concerned with other issues (not one of them related to profit,
Just a coincidence then that the end results were in fact, record profits?

and take that moronic Chalmers Johnson quote out of your sig. The US defense budget has ever reached a trillion dollars, let alone 3/4). It was certainly dishonest, but I don't see the criminal charges.

He was pretty close at the time. (http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending) And the Sig stays till somebody pwns him. He has made some pretty bold statements over the years with practicly no opposition. Same thing with the 2 films.
Same reason that average people thought it might have been Iraq.
I didn't hear anybody say Iraq might have done 9-11. Not even on the news.

Only God knows what kind of scene Rummy and Cheney put on to convince the rest of the room. Weapons inspectors went to Iraq several times and the end result was no one got hurt.

I've already addressed this.

Just a coincidence then that the end results were in fact, record profits?

And at the same time several extremely high profit margin programs were eliminated by the Rumsfeld DOD. Things like the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter, the Crusader mobile artillery and a reduction in emphasis on the Abrams tank in favor of smaller, cheaper vehicles? I hardly see a systemic case to be made that profits were what motivated the Bush administration's military decisions.


He was pretty close at the time. (http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending) And the Sig stays till somebody pwns him. He has made some pretty bold statements over the years with practicly no opposition. Same thing with the 2 films.

That graph alone proves him wrong. Global military expenditures never only ever reached 40% of his lower claim of three trillion dollars.

But you want pwnage? I'll give you pwnage.

His primary hypothesis is that since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States has developed a global empire centered around several hundred military bases scattered across the surface of the planet. Fine and dandy, but his primary quantitative figure, the number of bases illustrates his poor analysis and a failure to double check the facts. His famed claim that there is an American Empire based off of the number of military bases the US maintains around the world ignores the fact that his number of bases is actually a number of military owned properties. It is primarily composed of facilities in Germany, which include such nefarious black sites as golf courses, apartment buildings, schools and a mulch storage facility for Rammstein air bases landscaping.

Further, there is a substantial qualitative factor to determining whether a state is an empire or not. That is of direct of immediate control of government decision making processes territories unattached (culturally or geographically) to the home country. With the exception of a few Pacific and Caribbean possessions, there is no where in the world that fits this description. To ignore this, as Chalmers Johnson does is to be both blindly oblivious as well as duplicitous, as he derives substantial monetary benefit from these books and movies. After all, if he can make an extreme claim, like he does, people will buy it out of nothing more than "ooooh! Shiny!".

I could go on, and cite a whole host of people like Schweller, Herrman and Mueller who have rebutted Chalmer's Johnson in the academic literature, but I'd imagine that given your focus on his books and movies, which exist in the popular sphere, you don't pay much attention to the wide world of journals.

I didn't hear anybody say Iraq might have done 9-11. Not even on the news.

Then you weren't paying attention. I vivdly remember around noon on September eleventh, the station I was watching began talking about who might have been behind the attack. Iraq was front and center on their list for the simple reason of the continued hostility between the US and Iraq. I was in high school in 2001, so I recall at least two teachers speculating that it might have been Iraq.

I've already addressed this.

You gave your opinion that they can be trusted.

And at the same time several extremely high profit margin programs were eliminated by the Rumsfeld DOD. Things like the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter, the Crusader mobile artillery and a reduction in emphasis on the Abrams tank in favor of smaller, cheaper vehicles? I hardly see a systemic case to be made that profits were what motivated the Bush administration's military decisions.


Well you should pay attention more. It started back when 100 megaton nukes were on the table. Then it was explained to Eisenhower that the world can NOT survive a nukefest. But they kept trying (M-IC) Then the Bush administration took it to a whole new level. And Eisenhower made the major problems known that could come about by our (new at the time) M-IC a part of his farewell speech in 1961.

That graph alone proves him wrong. Global military expenditures never only ever reached 40% of his lower claim of three trillion dollars.


Some military organizations are not included in those figures. (remember, Bush said that part of the war on terror will be clandestine)

But you want pwnage? I'll give you pwnage.

His primary hypothesis is that since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States has developed a global empire centered around several hundred military bases scattered across the surface of the planet. Fine and dandy, but his primary quantitative figure, the number of bases illustrates his poor analysis and a failure to double check the facts. His famed claim that there is an American Empire based off of the number of military bases the US maintains around the world ignores the fact that his number of bases is actually a number of military owned properties. It is primarily composed of facilities in Germany, which include such nefarious black sites as golf courses, apartment buildings, schools and [I]a mulch storage facility for Rammstein air bases landscaping.

Further, there is a substantial qualitative factor to determining whether a state is an empire or not. That is of direct of immediate control of government decision making processes territories unattached (culturally or geographically) to the home country. With the exception of a few Pacific and Caribbean possessions, there is no where in the world that fits this description. To ignore this, as Chalmers Johnson does is to be both blindly oblivious as well as duplicitous, as he derives substantial monetary benefit from these books and movies. After all, if he can make an extreme claim, like he does, people will buy it out of nothing more than "ooooh! Shiny!".

I could go on, and cite a whole host of people like Schweller, Herrman and Mueller who have rebutted Chalmer's Johnson in the academic literature, but I'd imagine that given your focus on his books and movies, which exist in the popular sphere, you don't pay much attention to the wide world of journals.

You have only just brushed the surface on Chalmers. Can you be more specific about Schweller, Herrman and Mueller?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Schweller+Hermann+Mueller+Chalmers+Johnson&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Then you weren't paying attention. I vivdly remember around noon on September eleventh, the station I was watching began talking about who might have been behind the attack. Iraq was front and center on their list for the simple reason of the continued hostility between the US and Iraq. I was in high school in 2001, so I recall at least two teachers speculating that it might have been Iraq.

Were you watching Regis by chance? C'mon. It was all about bin Ladin, all over the news because of 1993.

It's been established beyond a doubt that Bush and Cheney authorized the torture of prisoners via waterboarding; that alone qualifies them as war criminals.

It's been established beyond a doubt that Bush and Cheney authorized the torture of prisoners via waterboarding; that alone qualifies them as war criminals.
But, wait! There's more!

It's been established beyond a doubt that Bush and Cheney authorized the torture of prisoners via waterboarding; that alone qualifies them as war criminals.

It's funny how things work out. I even concidered this fake, greedy war to be secondary to all the Karl Rove, subpeona stuff.

So Now I guess the pecking order is:

1) Gitmo
2) This
3) Rove
4) Playing the dummy card (Nuk-u-ler) to gain plausable deniablility. :p

It's been established beyond a doubt that Bush and Cheney authorized the torture of prisoners via waterboarding; that alone qualifies them as war criminals.

But he has to be allowed to use evidence in his defense.

Including evidence of mitigation which can easily be argued the entire security situation of the United States.
Don't forget to include evidence of outcome which is also a group of classified reports, remember the whole Cheney asking Clinton to release the documents about the results of water boarding? He knew those reports couldn't be released, he was basically telling her and the administration you will have to release those documents to put me on trial.

Then it's not going to happen ever. Public attention spans are too short.

The justice department's attention span is not so short. Moreover, the less interest the public has in the trial the more fair it will likely be.
Right now almost half the country thinks it was ok. With the money Bush and Cheney have I guarantee they will be able to select a jury that believes that most stringently.

Bump to show off new Rummy quote in sig. :p

Until a trial has been held and all the evidence on both sides is presented I wouldn't like to say for certain. My opinion is that by the use of torture they did, and by the use of Blackwater they broke the Anti-Pinkerton Act. Individual US soldiers also committed acts that should be investigated by international courts. Unfortunately the US refuses to sign up for any kind of international court and is never going to put itself on trial. Foolish really, because they would just get a slap on the wrist, in the larger scheme of things they were not anywhere near the kind of crimes committed by Radovan Karadzic for example.

Until a trial has been held and all the evidence on both sides is presented I wouldn't like to say for certain. My opinion is that by the use of torture they did, and by the use of Blackwater they broke the Anti-Pinkerton Act. Individual US soldiers also committed acts that should be investigated by international courts. Unfortunately the US refuses to sign up for any kind of international court and is never going to put itself on trial. Foolish really, because they would just get a slap on the wrist, in the larger scheme of things they were not anywhere near the kind of crimes committed by Radovan Karadzic for example.

The Anti Pinkerton law is not a law with a penalty.
It is more of a take the government to court and the court orders the government to stop said action, type law. The way the law is written for any agency outside of the Pinkerton agency you will almost always need an individual ruling (unless they are employed in breaking strikes).

The issue with the water boarding, is evidence. Too much of it is classified. One of the reasons Ford gave Nixon a pardon was because Nixon could have called forth too much classified info in his defense. Especially with Cambodia bombing stuff people wanted to put him on trial for.

The issue with the water boarding, is evidence. Too much of it is classified.

I think for this reason the US won't try and palm off Guantanamo inmates on other countries. They are after all potential witnesses, so it would be smart to keep them where you can control them even if it is hard thing to sell to the average citizen.

I think for this reason the US won't try and palm off Guantanamo inmates on other countries. They are after all potential witnesses, so it would be smart to keep them where you can control them even if it is hard thing to sell to the average citizen.

It is not proving that it happened that's the issue.
It is the defense calling the entire state of national security as a mitigation factor.

It is not proving that it happened that's the issue.
It is the defense calling the entire state of national security as a mitigation factor.

Isn't this the root of the problem does 'national security' trump every other bit of legislation or is it just an excuse to break the law while making sure there is never any evidence to prove it.

Was the Iraq war just a lie and a scam?
In a way, yes.

Was it all just to get defense contracts signed?
No, that was just beneficial side-effects.

playing with the media and going to war are not war crimes.
It's possible that it was. I think the Bush administration was responsible for the crime of agression, war crimes, crimes against humanity including but not limited to

Torture or inhuman treatment;

Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;


Possibly treason and murder as well.

It is not worth taking them to trial yet. too much calssfied information they can play games with.
Irrelevant. They should still be taken to court.

The war itself is not a war crime.
Just Crime against Peace?


But Muslim extremists live to be martyred. It is a great honor to them.
You are aware that there were very few of them in Iraq prior to the invasion, yes?


I think Crimes against humanity mostly for the gitmo stuff. Violating Geneva convention rights and so on is more doable. But again the defenses ability to request vast amounts of classified evidence including evidence that might negatively impact members of the democratic party ability to get elected.
I don't see why that should hinder prosecution of the former president and his cabinet.

It's possible that it was. I think the Bush administration was responsible for the crime of agression, war crimes, crimes against humanity including but not limited to

Article 39 of the UN charter says acts of aggression are determined by the UN security council. Guess how likely that is to pass ?

Torture or inhuman treatment;

Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;


Possibly treason and murder as well.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Treason is right out. Who has he killed for there to be murder ? Or directly ordered killed.
Your largely listing Crimes against humanity.


Irrelevant. They should still be taken to court.

Then he gets off. Then 10 years latter when the evidence can fully be declassified they are protected from trial again by double jeopardy.


Just Crime against Peace?

Humanity. Aggression can only be ruled on by the security council, and the US will veto any such measure to death.

I don't see why that should hinder prosecution of the former president and his cabinet.

National security concerns will prevent the defense from being able to use all relevant evidence. From there the results will only be the charges are tossed out or possibly an acquittal. A trial at this moment will not produce good results and could possibly protect Bush and crew from being charged later.

No, that was just beneficial side-effects.

Certainly not "side-effects" that came as a supprise to anyone that planned the war. I think it was the main reason.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

...we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Dwight D. Eisenhower January 17, 1961





You are aware that there were very few of them in Iraq prior to the invasion, yes?



VERY aware. Iraq was not even close to being a threat. My comment was refering to Saddam. He was an extremist but did not have anything extreme to back him up in this century, before the war.

Certainly not "side-effects" that came as a supprise to anyone that planned the war. I think it was the main reason.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm







VERY aware. Iraq was not even close to being a threat. My comment was refering to Saddam. He was an extremist but did not have anything extreme to back him up in this century, before the war.

your source is comparing apples and oranges.
Comparing "gross expenditures" versus "Net profits".
Compare gross expenditures versus gross expenditures.

your source is comparing apples and oranges.
Comparing "gross expenditures" versus "Net profits".
Compare gross expenditures versus gross expenditures.

To me it boils down to more money spent with the result of a less safe America. I don't like being scammed. DDE's warming is sound. There is not enough accountability within the Military-Industrial Complex. The Bush administration took advantage of it. (at a whole new level)

Article 39 of the UN charter says acts of aggression are determined by the UN security council. Guess how likely that is to pass ?
Article 39 doesn't say what you think it says:
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.shtml

This means that the UNSC shall determine if there is a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and then determine how to respond to it.

The UNSC does not hold the perogative to determine retroactively, in a court of law, if president Bush commited a crime of aggression. A US court could do that, however, since the US is bound by international law.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Treason is right out.
You're a prosecutor or a court now?

I still say that there is a theoretical possibility. Depends on how one could say that Bush levied war against the US by misleading the country into an illegal invasion of another country, causing US soldiers to die for nothing.

Who has he killed for there to be murder ? Or directly ordered killed.
http://www.buzzflash.com/store/images/1083_200.jpg (http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/)

Read and learn.


Your largely listing Crimes against humanity.
Yes. Still crimes, no?

Then he gets off. Then 10 years latter when the evidence can fully be declassified they are protected from trial again by double jeopardy.
Bullshit.

If he can't get the government to declassify the material you claim he could use to defend himself, then he's the one in a pinch. He won't get off due to the evidence at hand.

Humanity. Aggression can only be ruled on by the security council, and the US will veto any such measure to death.
Wrong.

National security concerns will prevent the defense from being able to use all relevant evidence. From there the results will only be the charges are tossed out or possibly an acquittal. A trial at this moment will not produce good results and could possibly protect Bush and crew from being charged later.
It won't happen "later". The American people would like to forget, and that means letting a band of criminals walk free if you don't take action now.

Certainly not "side-effects" that came as a supprise to anyone that planned the war. I think it was the main reason.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
And I disagree.



VERY aware. Iraq was not even close to being a threat. My comment was refering to Saddam. He was an extremist but did not have anything extreme to back him up in this century, before the war.
He certainly wasn't a muslim extremist.

I believe that the Bush administration are indeed war criminals.

If you take the indictments used at the Nuremberg Trials, those have been fulfilled:

1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3. War crimes
4. Crimes against humanity

Just too bad the this time it's the U.S. who perpetrated those things and there's nobody around to initiate something like the Washington Trials.

Doesn't keep me from regarding the Bush admin as war criminals!

You're a prosecutor or a court now?

we are debating the possibility of putting bush on trial. So we are both playing armchair lawyer no?

I still say that there is a theoretical possibility. Depends on how one could say that Bush levied war against the US by misleading the country into an illegal invasion of another country, causing US soldiers to die for nothing.
[quote]
Lying is not a crime(unless your under oath).
Moreover as he was acting as an agent of the state it is really hard to say he was trying to over throw the state.
[quote]

http://www.buzzflash.com/store/images/1083_200.jpg (http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/)

Read and learn.

Right back at you
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/politicaljunkies/g/greymail.htm



Yes. Still crimes, no?


I am not saying he didn't commit crimes


If he can't get the government to declassify the material you claim he could use to defend himself, then he's the one in a pinch. He won't get off due to the evidence at hand.

So is a dead body. Public evidence says you shot him.
Classified evidence shows it was in self defense. The government wont declassify the evidence so your guilty of murder ?
It is a good thing it doesn't work that way. Not for Bush, but for everyone else. Pesky things called right to a fair trial.
The 5th amendment's requires due process and the 6th amendment's compulsory process (for classified testimony).



It won't happen "later". The American people would like to forget, and that means letting a band of criminals walk free if you don't take action now.
It is not for the American population to charge Mr. Bush that is for the justice department to do.
The justice department does not forget(except for statue of limitations). Do we not send Nazi war criminals away to face trial, to this very day ?
Is it not unreasonable to charge people years after an offense ?

we are debating the possibility of putting bush on trial. So we are both playing armchair lawyer no?
One of us is. And you also didn't debate, you just dismissed. No argument, no reasoning, simply it's out.


Lying is not a crime(unless your under oath).
It would be "treason" that would be the crime, not the lie in and by itself.

Moreover as he was acting as an agent of the state it is really hard to say he was trying to over throw the state.
Why? Overthrowing the state is not a requirement in "treason". Could he not have attempted to weaken the state through an unnecessary war, for personal power or profit?

Right back at you
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/politicaljunkies/g/greymail.htm
Yes, he could also try for the Chewbacca defense...

I am not saying he didn't commit crimes
Just that he shouldn't be tried for them... Except maybe at some unknown point in the future...

So is a dead body. Public evidence says you shot him.
Classified evidence shows it was in self defense. The government wont declassify the evidence so your guilty of murder ?
It is a good thing it doesn't work that way. Not for Bush, but for everyone else. Pesky things called right to a fair trial.
The 5th amendment's requires due process and the 6th amendment's compulsory process (for classified testimony).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_Information_Procedures_Act

I still don't see the problem.



It is not for the American population to charge Mr. Bush that is for the justice department to do.
The justice department does not forget(except for statue of limitations). Do we not send Nazi war criminals away to face trial, to this very day ?
Is it not unreasonable to charge people years after an offense ?
The prosecution of a former Persident of the US Vs. the prosecution of foreign-born nazi war criminals? Sure, that's comparable...

The justice department all too easily forgets. Sometimes it's like they suffer from amnesia. But alas, they forget on purpose.

Were you watching Regis by chance? C'mon. It was all about bin Ladin, all over the news because of 1993.

I believe if by Regis, you mean some morning news anchor on NBC whose name I can't remember, yes. Hussein was one of the people I heard mentioned during the early hours after the event.

You gave your opinion that they can be trusted.

I'm not exactly sure that's what I said.


Well you should pay attention more. It started back when 100 megaton nukes were on the table. Then it was explained to Eisenhower that the world can NOT survive a nukefest. But they kept trying (M-IC) Then the Bush administration took it to a whole new level. And Eisenhower made the major problems known that could come about by our (new at the time) M-IC a part of his farewell speech in 1961.

Well, given that I'm actually a part of said complex, I'm quite aware of it. But, there has not been a radical increase in military spending in the Bush years. There have been increases, yes, but not to a massive degree. More than anything, current expenditures have been in line with Clinton-era levels, especially in relation to GDP. In fact, while there is some evidence that a MIC exists, the evidence indicates that it is far weaker than Eisenhower feared. Further, Eisenhower's worries were regarding the influence the MIC would have on the democratic political structure of the US--including his oft pronounced fears that should we lose NATO and the Soviets take Western Europe, that the US would slide into fascism.

So, cut it with the Oli Stone foolishness...you should know better.


Some military organizations are not included in those figures. (remember, Bush said [in 2001] that part of the war on terror will be clandestine)

No, they are included in those figures within the discretionary portion of the defense budget. Further, that figure you gave is total global military spending (i.e., it includes countries that aren't the US, like Iran). The US spends about a third of that, thus, there is no way we're anywhere near three to four billion dollars.

You have only just brushed the surface on Chalmers. Can you be more specific about Schweller, Herrman and Mueller?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Schweller+Hermann+Mueller+Chalmers+Johnson&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

You google searched for three separate academic journal articles? That might work with popular books whose purpose is to sell copies and make the author money, such as is the case with The Sorrow's of Empire, but try something more sophisticated.

Further, I utterly demolished his central thesis. That's all I really have the time to do on a frakking internet forum.

It would be "treason" that would be the crime, not the lie in and by itself.

You need a treasonous act to be treason.


Why? Overthrowing the state is not a requirement in "treason". Could he not have attempted to weaken the state through an unnecessary war, for personal power or profit?

Those are not treason.
You must levy war against the state or giving aid and comfort to the state's enemies.
Those are the only two definitions in US law.

Yes, he could also try for the Chewbacca defense...


Just that he shouldn't be tried for them... Except maybe at some unknown point in the future...
[/quote]
I am saying there will be only once chance to get Bush, do it when it will work, not when it will fail.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_Information_Procedures_Act

I still don't see the problem.

Because it worked so well during the Oliver North?
No wait all charges were dismissed and someone guilty as hell is free because of it.


The prosecution of a former Persident of the US Vs. the prosecution of foreign-born nazi war criminals? Sure, that's comparable...

The justice department all too easily forgets. Sometimes it's like they suffer from amnesia. But alas, they forget on purpose.

Are you saying the justice department under Obama is prejudice and prone to forget crimes when committed by certain people ?

You need a treasonous act to be treason.
"Willfully misleading the US into an illegal and unnecessary war, causing thousands of US servicemen and -women to suffer undue hardships, injuries and death, thereby depleting the US armed forces and undermining the defensive capability of the US, for the sake of personal gain and profit."

There's one act.

Those are not treason.
You must levy war against the state or giving aid and comfort to the state's enemies.
Those are the only two definitions in US law.
Should I repeat myself and say that his actions could possibly fall under a wide definition of "levy war against the state" when he makes the country engage in an illegal and unnecessary war? Did you miss that part before?


I am saying there will be only once chance to get Bush, do it when it will work, not when it will fail.
I agree in principle, but disagree that it's doomed to fail now.


Because it worked so well during the Oliver North?
No wait all charges were dismissed and someone guilty as hell is free because of it.
And it didn't work for Lewis Libby. I think you overestimate the defensive strategy.

Are you saying the justice department under Obama is prejudice and prone to forget crimes when committed by certain people ?
The justice department always has been, and I doubt that it'll be different today.

I believe if by Regis, you mean some morning news anchor on NBC whose name I can't remember, yes. Hussein was one of the people I heard mentioned during the early hours after the event.

Good for you. Yes I heard his name too. Then they went right back to talking about bin Ladin and 1993.




Well, given that I'm actually a part of said complex, I'm quite aware of it. But, there has not been a radical increase in military spending in the Bush years. There have been increases, yes, but not to a massive degree.
*train wreck*


More than anything, current expenditures have been in line with Clinton-era levels, especially in relation to GDP. In fact, while there is some evidence that a MIC exists, the evidence indicates that it is far weaker than Eisenhower feared. Further, Eisenhower's worries were regarding the influence the MIC would have on the democratic political structure of the US--including his oft pronounced fears that should we lose NATO and the Soviets take Western Europe, that the US would slide into fascism.

So, cut it with the Oli Stone foolishness...you should know better.

You watched the wrong films. (I didnt list "W")

No, they are included in those figures within the discretionary portion of the defense budget. Further, that figure you gave is total global military spending (i.e., it includes countries that aren't the US, like Iran). The US spends about a third of that, thus, there is no way we're anywhere near three to four billion dollars.

Scroll down the link! :rolleyes:

You google searched for three separate academic journal articles? That might work with popular books whose purpose is to sell copies and make the author money, such as is the case with The Sorrow's of Empire, but try something more sophisticated.
So in fact you can't post ANYTHING to support Schweller, Herrman and Mueller.

Further, I utterly demolished his central thesis. That's all I really have the time to do on a frakking internet forum.

*tries smelling salts on Andaluciae since nothing eles seems to be working*

PS: Tell those people you work with, that their bosses can't lie worth a shit! There was NEVER a sound reason for attacking Iraq this century.