rummy....
- Thread starter grumpyone
- Start date
- Status
What about Wolfowitz? Let's not forget that traitorous scum.
Wolfowitz Doctrine is an unofficial name given to the initial version of the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–99 fiscal years (dated February 18, 1992) authored by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy Scooter Libby.
Not intended for public release, it was leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992,[SUP][1][/SUP] and sparked a public controversy about U.S. foreign and defense policy. The document was widely criticized as imperialist as the document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status
Wolfie admits he and the boys royally screwed the pooch;
The former deputy Pentagon chief, Paul Wolfowitz, a driving force behind the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, has conceded that a series of blunders by George W. Bush’s administration plunged Iraq into a cycle of violence that “spiralled out of control”.
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar..._us_bungled_in_iraq_117492.html#ixzz2xCckGXil
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
christiefan915
Catalyst
Go and read about the "advisors" Eisenhower sent over dimwit and stop moving the goalposts.
January 20, 1953 - Dwight D. Eisenhower, former five-star Army general and Allied commander in Europe during World War II, is inaugurated as the 34th U.S. President.
During his term, Eisenhower will greatly increase U.S. military aid to the French in Vietnam to prevent a Communist victory. U.S. military advisors will continue to accompany American supplies sent to Vietnam. To justify America's financial commitment, Eisenhower will cite a 'Domino Theory' in which a Communist victory in Vietnam would result in surrounding countries falling one after another like a "falling row of dominoes." The Domino Theory will be used by a succession of Presidents and their advisors to justify ever-deepening U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html
t in Vietnam.
Thank you, and welcome.
You have been awarded the official village idiot award. Congratulations it is not given out lightly.
christiefan915
Catalyst
son, you are exactly what i was referring to....intellectually corrupt and not quite half as smart as you think you are, basically stuck on stupid....
I thinks its you that needs the history lesson...
Well, if you wanna nit-pick sweetie, lets get
the facts right....
In September 1950, US President Harry Truman sent the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) to Vietnam to assist the French in the First Indochina War. Harry was a Democrat, as you
well know....so you can start there if its advisers you want to say was our entry in the VW.
After the French were defeated in 1954, we got more involved under Eisenhower with more
advisers being sent and SEATO was formed.
Then Kennedy sent in even more advisers in 1961, but,
THE FIRST US combat troops weren't sent to fight
in Vietnam until Feb. 9, 1965, Mr. LBJ was president.....
Though history will say the Vietnam War started in 1957, that was a conflict between the republic of Vietnam and the Vietcong....we were not doing the fighting then....
Nice try in attempting to absolve LBJ of this most horrific blunder in US history....
Idiot is truly idiotic.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Why do you continue to say I'm absolving LBJ? I don't absolve any prez for any war because I'm anti-war. As both our posts show the Vietnam war was accelerated by presidents of both parties but TD is trying to lay it all at the feet of Dems.
maineman
Banned
Wolfie, Perle, the whole lot of them. They all are traitorous cowards in my book.
maineman
Banned
As you well know, I think that truth deflector is perhaps the most worthless piece of shit on this board, but even a stopped watch is right twice a day... Vietnam was pretty much small change until McNamara and Wheeler and MacDonald all lied their asses off about the Gulf of Tonkin. Solely advisors before that... grunts by the boatload after that. We didn't start seeing weekly body counts on the evening news until that all happened. Then, of course, Nixon lied HIS ass off during the '68 campaign claiming he had a "secret plan" to quickly end the war... that "secret plan" basically consisted of bombing Cambodia and not doing squat to end the war for four more years.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
That would be a good poll Mainman. Who is the most worthless piece of shit on this board? I'd be hard pressed to choose between TB and Taft. Then there's USF. This would be quite a race, that much is certain. They've all campaigned hard.
christiefan915
Catalyst
We could split the purse among the three.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You just can't let go of the fact that you had to give up your light pole, on the corner, when your brother finally took you off of the streets.
I guess I took you posts about the "domino theory" and Eisenhower sending more advisers to Vietnam as saying that was the start of the US getting into a fighting war there....
seems like you were pushing a theory of your own with Ike....
Yeah, Ike sent more and then Kennedy sent even more than that.....
yeah, we did get a little more involved in Vietnam with every president since Truman, but the big screw up
was LBJ....all by his little lonesome.....not only was he the first to put our troops there fighting and dying, he lied big time to do it....he just didn't make a mistake, or got
lousy intell., he manufactured a crisis for the sole purpose of sending in ground troops, and escalating this civil war at a cost to us that far shines anything in Iraq or Afghanistan....
which all goes back to Rummy being a poor Sec. of Def......yeah, he wasn't the best and made some blunders, but he hardly compares to McNamara and what he
did in Vietnam and what it costs this country.
Every sane person is anti-war....but you just gotta realize reality....sometimes harsh things HAVE TO be done to prevent even harsher things from happening.
Last edited:
Invading a sovereign nation, for crimes of torture in accordance with Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter. "The US is subject to customary international law and to the principles of the Nuremberg Charter and exceptional circumstances such as war, instability and public emergency cannot excuse torture.
Additionally;
A hill outside Basra was napalmed during the initial invasion of Iraq. So were two bridges south of Baghdad.Reports are based on an article by Andrew Boncombe (“U.S. Admits It Used Napalm Bombs in Iraq”) in The Independent on August 10, 2003, and a second source, Martin Savidge (“Protecting Iraq’s Oil Supply) broadcast on CNN on March 22, 2003.The use of napalm is banned by Article 55(1) of Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions.
During November 2004, white phosphorous, a chemical that can cause serious burns, was used as an anti-personnel airborne weapon in Fallujah, according to several American military officers. On the last day of the month, General Peter Pace, who headed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, defended the use of white phosphorous to illuminate targets at night.Evidence was first reported by Peter Popham (“US Forces Used Chemical Weapons During Assault on City of Fallujah”) in The Independent on November 8, 2005, and affirmed as well by Ali A. Allawi in The Occupation of Iraq (Yale University Press, 2007, p. 339).According to the Article 2 of the Protocol on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons of 1980: “(1) It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons. (2) It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.”
Some 2,000 tons ofdepleted uranium bullets, which can combust into a ball of fire measuring 10,000 Centigrade degrees, were utilized in the invasion of Iraq. At least 200 tons were used after the invasion. Children exposed to the munitions have come down with leukemia.There are many sources: Dahr Jamail, “What Have We Done?” Iraq Dispatches, August 6, 2005; Neil Mackay, “US Forces’ Use of Depleted Uranium Is ‘Illegal’,” Sunday Morning Herald, March 20, 2003; Angus Stickler, “Depleted Uranium Weapons—A BBC Investigation,” BBC Radio, August 21, 2007; Geert Van Moorer, “One Year After the Fall of Baghdad: How Healthy Is Iraq?,” Health-Now.com, April 28, 2004; Nao Shimoyachi, “Depleted Uranium Shells Decried: Citizens Find Bush Guilty of Afghan War Crimes,”Japan Times, March 14, 2004; World Tribunal on Iraq Declaration of the Jury of Conscience, Istanbul, June 25, 2005.According to Article 11 of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management of 1997: “Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that at all stages of radioactive waste management individuals, society and the environment are adequately protected against radiological and other hazards.”
After the attacks on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush declared a “War on Terror” and secured support in that “war” from Congress later that year in a resolution entitled “Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Based on that resolution, Bush commanded American troops to enter Afghanistan, and the Taliban was driven from power in the country. For a war to be in accord with the UN Charter, the UN Security Council must give approval. No such approval, however, was sought or granted. The Afghan War, in other words, was illegal under international law.
http://www.uswarcrimes.com/In case some politicians found it difficult to understand all this, Article 2(4) spelled it out in unequivocal terms: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state".
Everyone recognised there might have to be exceptions to this rule, but the Charter specifically does not authorize preemptive nor preventative action(i.e. getting in first) on the basis of a perceived future threat.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-bush-blair/
A top adviser to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned the Bush administration that its use of “cruel, inhuman or degrading” interrogation techniques like waterboarding were “a felony war crime.”
What’s more, newly obtained documents reveal that State Department counselor Philip Zelikow told the Bush team in 2006 that using the controversial interrogation techniques were “prohibited” under U.S. law — “even if there is a compelling state interest asserted to justify them.”
Zelikow argued that the Geneva conventions applied to al-Qaida — a position neither the Justice Department nor the White House shared at the time. That made waterboarding and the like a violation of the War Crimes statute and a “felony,” Zelikow tells Danger Room. Asked explicitly if he believed the use of those interrogation techniques were a war crime, Zelikow replied, “Yes.”
Zelikow first revealed the existence of his secret memo, dated Feb. 15, 2006, in an April 2009 blog post, shortly after the Obama administration disclosed many of its predecessor’s legal opinions blessing torture. He briefly described it (.pdf) in a contentious Senate hearing shortly thereafter, revealing then that “I later heard the memo was not considered appropriate for further discussion and that copies of my memo should be collected and destroyed.”
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/04/secret-torture-memo/
Zelikow’s memo was an internal bureaucratic push against an attempt by the Justice Department to flout long-standing legal restrictions against torture. In 2005, he wrote, both the Justice and State Departments had decided that international prohibitions against “acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture” do not “apply to CIA interrogations in foreign countries.” Those techniques included contorting a detainee’s body in painful positions, slamming a detainee’s head against a wall, restricting a detainee’s caloric intake, and waterboarding.
Zelikow wrote that a law passed that year by Congress, restricting interrogation techniques, meant the “situation has now changed.” Both legally and as a matter of policy, he advised, administration officials were endangering both CIA interrogators and the reputation of the United States by engaging in extreme interrogations — even those that stop short of torture.
“We are unaware of any precedent in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or any subsequent conflict for authorized, systematic interrogation practices similar to those in question here,” Zelikow wrote, “even where the prisoners were presumed to be unlawful combatants.
Retired General Antonio Taguba who led the US army’s investigation into the Abu Ghraib abuses has accused the Bush administration of “a systematic regime of torture” and war crimes. Taguba’s accusations appear in the preface to a new report released by Physicians for Human Rights. The report uses medical evidence to confirm first-hand accounts of eleven former prisoners who endured torture by US personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay.
Taguba writes “there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20130.htm
Need I go on, 3-D? Bush alone stands accused of 269 separate and verifiable felonies. Add His father, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Wolfowitz, Yoo, Baker, Quayle, Webster and Schwharzkopf and the charges run into the thousands.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20130.htm
Need I go on, 3-D? Bush alone stands accused of 269 separate and verifiable felonies. Add His father, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Wolfowitz, Yoo, Baker, Quayle, Webster and Schwharzkopf and the charges run into the thousands.
International law does not prohibit the use of napalm or other incendiaries against military targets,[SUP][21][/SUP] but use against civilian populations was banned by the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in 1980.[SUP][22][/SUP] Protocol III of the CCW restricts the use of all incendiary weapons, but a number of states have not acceded to all of the protocols of the CCW. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), states are considered a party to the convention, which entered into force as international law in December 1983, if they ratify at least two of the five protocols. The United States signed it almost three decades after the General Assembly adopted it, on January 21, 2009: President Barack Obama’s first full day in office. America’s ratification, however, is subject to a diplomatic reservation that says it can disregard the treaty at its discretion if doing so would save civilian lives.
http://tinyurl.com/qv7wm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Protocol III
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
Geneva, 10 October 1980
Article 1
Definitions
For the purpose of this Protocol:
Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.
Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.
Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.
Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects
It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
http://tinyurl.com/qv7wm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Protocol III
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
Geneva, 10 October 1980
Article 1
Definitions
For the purpose of this Protocol:
Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.
Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.
Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.
Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects
It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
Althea
Althea told me...
Back atcha! I'm not the type to make public departures (or arrivals, for that matter). I'm a lot older than the core here, and sometimes there's virtually no reason to wade through the childish arguments that every thread devolves into.
Decided to check in, and see what's going on lately.
Althea
Althea told me...
Which is why he's been on ignore for months. I see it was a smart decision.
Althea
Althea told me...
When Bush failed miserably at finding Bin Laden, he steered billion$ to the Iraq failed 'blood for oil' campaign. Since he left town, we spend money not because we have any real plans for Afghanistan, but because our presence there gives us the necessary proximity to our real problem....Pakistan. Karzai is butthurt because he'll have to find a real job now.
- Status