Democrats Cave to Warlords

[mike777]

If the Indian Wars were one long act of war crimes and genocide at the very least our Presidents from Washington on and our military leaders turned a blind eye to it or encouraged it.

 

In the Revolutionary War the Brits certainly accused Washington of war crimes.

 

WWI the winning side certainly commited genocide and war crimes.

 

In WWII our Air Force leaders conceded if we lost the war they would be tried and convicted of war crimes. Yet FDR and Truman and Marshall and others turned a blind eye to it.

 

Our Marines in the Pacific shot the wounded and POW's. This also happened on D-Day.

 

The Union won the Civil War at the very least committing Genocide and War crimes.

 

No one advocates it but I fail to see a winning side in war in history that does not commit these crimes.

 

See the winning side in Iraq or Vietnam.

 

War is hell.

[pbleighton]

If the Indian Wars were one long act of war crimes and genocide at the very least our Presidents from Washington on and our military leaders turned a blind eye to it or encouraged it.

 

They certainly did.

 

See the winning side in Iraq or Vietnam.

 

Which side is winning in Iraq? I see lots of losers, but no winners.

 

Do you think historical evil justifies present or prospective evil? I do not. You appear to.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

WWI the winning side certainly commited genocide and war crimes.

 

The Union won the Civil War at the very least committing Genocide and War crimes.

 

No one advocates it but I fail to see a winning side in war in history that does not commit these crimes.

 

You don't even seem to understand the expressions that you use.

 

Genocide has a fairly specific meaning: It refers to a deliberate attempt to exterminate a specific ethnic group. The Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews is (obviously) the best known example. There are others.

 

Genocide is not synonymous with killing large numbers of people. For example, Stalin and Mao both murdered millions of people. I don't think that these actions can properly be referred to as a "genocide" because the killings were based on class rather than ethnicity. Even you you want to extend the expression to include class or political groups - some people argue in favor of broadening the expression - there is still the element of deliberate extermination.

 

I don't think that you can claim that the Allies in World War I or the Union during the Civil War were genocidal. Please show me an example where any of these groups was attempting to slaughter an entire ethnic group? (Please note: I careful stated "Allied" armies. Some would claim that the Turk's policies towards the Armenians should be described as genocidal). The victorious allies certainly didn't try to exterminate all Germans or kill every last Austrian.

 

For what its worth, I do believe that the United States behaved in a genocidal manner towards the Native Americans. We deliberated set out to exterminate.

[luke warm]

QUOTE (winston)

What was it about 9-11 that changed that perception? It is my firm belief that it was the cateclismic collapses of the towers that galvanized the American phsyche, reinforced by retaliatory rhetoric that played upon emotion rather than logic. These were vidoe clips that could be shown over and over, reinforcing the rhetoric, increasing the emotional response mechanisms.

 

 

sigh

 

Jimmy, I really do understand this response. I know it seems redundant to keep harping on the same subject.

the sigh was more sad than anything else, winston... i just have such a hard time understanding why your posts (almost all of them) point to america as the culprit, the evil one... you compare bush et al to hitler, you blame america for the collapse of buildings, etc etc

 

it just makes me tired, so sorry

[Winstonm]

i just have such a hard time understanding why your posts (almost all of them) point to america as the culprit,

 

Simple - it is American foreign policy over the past 50 years that has created the very enemy we fight. In a sense, al-Qaeda can be viewed as a revolutionary force intent on overthrowing the ruling class within their lands - and the ultimate ruler pulling the strings of the puppet is the U.S.

 

To believe this war is about bringing freedom and democracy to the middle east is naive to the point of near idolitizing blind faith fed by lunacy - this is nothing more than a battle of wills to see if the U.S. can dominate and impose its will on the region.

 

That's why no one will give up - to quit the war is to admit that the U.S. can no longer impose its will. To quit means to admit that 50 years of foreign policy has been wrong.

[luke warm]

i just have such a hard time understanding why your posts (almost all of them) point to america as the culprit,

 

Simple - it is American foreign policy over the past 50 years that has created the very enemy we fight. In a sense, al-Qaeda can be viewed as a revolutionary force intent on overthrowing the ruling class within their lands - and the ultimate ruler pulling the strings of the puppet is the U.S.

even if that's true, it imo makes for a very poor reason to seemingly side against america in almost all things, at least in those public things you mention... your posts suggest that everything is evil or conspiratorial, and always with america as the evil conspirator

To believe this war is about bringing freedom and democracy to the middle east is naive to the point of near idolitizing blind faith fed by lunacy - this is nothing more than a battle of wills to see if the U.S. can dominate and impose its will on the region.

you have fallen into a bad habit (again, imo) of stating your personal views as if they were concrete facts... anyone who believes the importation of liberty and democracy is a goal of america is a faith-filled, naive, lunatic... anyone who believes your truth is a reasonable, intelligent student of foreign policy... is that correct?

That's why no one will give up - to quit the war is to admit that the U.S. can no longer impose its will.  To quit means to admit that 50 years of foreign policy has been wrong.

regardless of our future actions in iraq, it proves nothing about the last 50 years... i personally would have done a lot of things differently, but i know deep down that those actions could have been just as 'right' or 'wrong' as those actually taken

[Winstonm]

even if that's true, it imo makes for a very poor reason to seemingly side against america in almost all things, at least in those public things you mention... your posts suggest that everything is evil or conspiratorial, and always with america as the evil conspirator

 

Hmmm. Curious thinking to me. I am of the viewpoint that you can be very much in support of your country by the very action of pointing out and condemning the wrongful actions of the leaders. To blindly support "America" seems to me a whole lot like the "We were just following orders" Nurermberg defense.

 

you have fallen into a bad habit (again, imo) of stating your personal views as if they were concrete facts... anyone who believes the importation of liberty and democracy is a goal of america is a faith-filled, naive, lunatic... anyone who believes your truth is a reasonable, intelligent student of foreign policy... is that correct?

 

Right you are, Jimmy. I often in my zeal fail to write: IMO. Having agreed with that, I will also point out that it is my opinion that the statement I made has reached rhetorical status and is so incredibly obvious that it takes more work and obfuscation and denial of both evidence and reason to deny its inherent truth rather than simply accept it as fact. To me, it seems indisputable.

 

regardless of our future actions in iraq, it proves nothing about the last 50 years... i personally would have done a lot of things differently, but i know deep down that those actions could have been just as 'right' or 'wrong' as those actually taken

 

I don't grasp why this is so difficult - it is the continuity of actions over that time span that has created our enemies. How you can claim past actions have no bearing on present condition astounds my sensibilities - it's like saying I shot your wife yesterday but today is a whole different day so why have a grudge. According to some (I'll use the Fox copout), we installed the Shah in Iran, we virtually forced Saudi Arabia to allow a permanent U.S. military presence in that country, and we have blindly supported Israel while castigating all enemies of Israel. Actions have consequences - what we have done is to deny the consequences of our own actions and blamed others for creating unwarranted initializing actions. It is not a matter of right or wrong. It is a matter of truthfulness and accepting the consequences of our own behavior. Instead of being truthful and admitting that we have enemies because of our foreign policy, we have to make up initializing attacks based on hatred of our democracy and freedom.

 

The Jihad was not the beginning of the war; it was a retaliation for the perceived war that we had been waging against Islam since Israel became a state - and it culminated with the presence of U.S. military near Mecca and Medina.

 

IMHO, of course.