![]() |
|
|||||||
| Parking Lot Off-topic chatter pertaining to movies, TV, music, video games, etc. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#10 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 227
|
Re: Let's impeach the president.
Quote:
The terrorists in Iraq have no interest in Iraq. They have an interest in driving us out of the middle east, but once we're gone they'll have no reason to worsen the situation in Iraq in hope of influencing the Iraqi's to turn on us. With no enemy in Iraq, they'll want to stick around a civil war no more than we do. They don't need new territory or to waste their resourses fighting Muslims. They'll live in Iraq by avoiding the civil war or deploying elsewhere until the war in over. Then, they'll try to unite the whole muslim world to achieve their objective, which is, by the way, not to take over the world. People in the middle east are prone to be terrorists because they want non -Muslim's out of the middle east. They attacked us on 911 because American hegemony in the middle east is perceived by them as a threat to them. No hegemony, no terrorists. One way to make America safe is for America to stop trying to take over land and resources in the middle east. In other words, the way to end this war is to lose it and develop more laudable national interests. This perspective I am setting forth is a "conservative" perspective. Unfortunately, conservatives today have no idea what conservatism is. Goldwater is probably turning over in his grave. Forget the Supreme Court (Bush's court). International law doesn't give a darn about what is declared as legal by individual nations. War criminals are sentenced to prison or to death no matter what the laws are in their respective countries. Bush and Rummy are war criminals and will be tried and punished under the Geneva Conventions if they are caught and taken by any number of other countries. No one will care what the Supreme Court rules, not even Americans. It has almost zero credibility since handing over the presidency to Bush with transparent skulduggery The only think it's done of any integrity lately is to refuse to go along with Bush's kangaroo court. By the way, their decision was narrower than you give it credit for. It gave no charter for military tribunals. Any program Bush comes up with will take him back before the court. Finally, Rumsfeld. To say that Rumsfeld didn't "participate" in the prisoner's torture, is roughly akin to saying Eichmann didn't "participate" in the murder of Jews. The particular prisoner was tortured by methods specifically perscribed for him in particular by Rumsfeld, who personally upgraded the torture when what he ordered didn't work at first. He didn't personally pull the prisoner's clothes off and pour the water, but he also wasn't off in an ivory tower conjuring up abstract concepts. He was on-site, participating, giving the orders to apply particular tortures to the prisoner. He watched and ordered. He was there. He was the torturer in chief and apparently fascinated by it. Afterward, he wrote a note ordering the same tortures be inflicted on the prisoners at Abu Graib. |
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|