RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


MrRodgers -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/3/2015 3:11:04 PM)

Vietnam was a war for profit and was supposed to last forever or at least as long as it could. It was a war enabled by the Gulf of Tonkin incident (and following cong. resolution) that never happened but was a complete concoction to justify a huge build-up of US forces.

Then we gave NVN unimaginable tactical knowledge to help prolong the war. (that also did for more damage than anything Jane Fondle did)

Kissinger secretly went to the north during peace talks under LBJ to tell the North Vietnamese to wait and get a better deal under Nixon. They did.

And after refusing LBJ, got 6 more years of war and the Cambodian bombing under Nixon.

Many objective observers could ask that they ALL stand trial for war crimes.




bounty44 -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/3/2015 3:19:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

No, it was with gulf war one.
And Gulf war two was brought on, in part by Iraq's refusal to abide by the cease fire at the end of one.

Welcome to the conversation. You are correct about Gulf war I. There was an authorizing Security Council resolution. We disagree about Iraq War 2. The UN SC did not pass an enabling resolution. And the WMDs turned out to be a propaganda myth.

They found over a ton of fissionable material.
Plus labs for bio and chemical weapons.
And Iraq had violated virtually every article of the cease-fire, not a treaty, a cease-fire.

Give me a link to your claim please.


http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50430

http://conservativepapers.com/news/2014/12/10/why-is-saddams-nuclear-materials-wmd-heating-america-homes-this-winter/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html








mnottertail -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/3/2015 3:27:08 PM)

One is well known, in on the deal from before the war.

site two is not credible.

cite three is not chemical weapons, precursor chemicals. ammonia is a precursor chemical, as is chlorine. it doesnt mean anything. and never followed up on. If W would have found WMD he, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al would be on the nuze 24/7/365 and it didn't happen.

read your goddamn links.





BamaD -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/3/2015 3:33:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Vietnam was a war for profit and was supposed to last forever or at least as long as it could. It was a war enabled by the Gulf of Tonkin incident (and following cong. resolution) that never happened but was a complete concoction to justify a huge build-up of US forces.

Then we gave NVN unimaginable tactical knowledge to help prolong the war. (that also did for more damage than anything Jane Fondle did)

Kissinger secretly went to the north during peace talks under LBJ to tell the North Vietnamese to wait and get a better deal under Nixon. They did.

And after refusing LBJ, got 6 more years of war and the Cambodian bombing under Nixon.

Many objective observers could ask that they ALL stand trial for war crimes.

Exactly the evaluation I would expect from you.




Politesub53 -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/3/2015 4:32:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I remember the photo. Making anti-American propaganda is not treason; it is free speech. Tokyo Rose did not save lives. Different war; different morality.
Bottom line, Fonda and the anti-war movement hurried us out of a stupid and desperately self-imposed, national delusion. Takes guts to stand against the mob.

Fonda's behavior does not excuse Kissinger's crimes.


Dont be so stupid Vincent, there is no such thinbg as free speech unless you are a Republican. [;)]




CreativeDominant -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/3/2015 8:15:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I remember the photo. Making anti-American propaganda is not treason; it is free speech. Tokyo Rose did not save lives. Different war; different morality.
Bottom line, Fonda and the anti-war movement hurried us out of a stupid and desperately self-imposed, national delusion. Takes guts to stand against the mob.

Fonda's behavior does not excuse Kissinger's crimes.


Dont be so stupid Vincent, there is no such thinbg as free speech unless you are a Republican. [;)]

Yeah, that's why you see Republicans out protesting when college campuses invite liberal speakers. Oh wait, that's right...that's the free speech-loving student Dems that do that when conservative speakers are invited.

Derail much?




Sanity -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/4/2015 3:03:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Dont be so stupid Vincent, there is no such thinbg as free speech unless you are a Republican. [;)]

Yeah, that's why you see Republicans out protesting when college campuses invite liberal speakers. Oh wait, that's right...that's the free speech-loving student Dems that do that when conservative speakers are invited.

Derail much?



quote:

University Pres. Scolds Students for Inviting Ann Coulter to Speak: ‘Disappointed’ Would Be ‘Tremendous Understatement’


Its called 'political correctness' when "liberals" attack free speech

No ideas or thinking allowed




Politesub53 -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/4/2015 3:57:11 AM)

See what I mean Vincent. [;)]




Zonie63 -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/4/2015 5:40:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
My questions are:

1. Is John McCain, A Member of the U.S. Senate, a scurrilous scoundrel for treating protesting citizens with such foul and undignified expletives? Or is he a champion of a great warrior nation? Was John justified?


No, he wasn't justified in calling them "low life scum."

quote:


2. Should Henry Kissinger be tried before the ICC for war crimes, despite the technicality that we are not parties to the ICC? Big technicality, I know. Should we join that treaty?


It would seem to make sense that we should, given that Kissinger and many others in the government claimed to be doing all of this for the sake of the "free world." If we claim to act for the sake of international law and justice, then we have to subject ourselves to that law - or we'll have to refrain from embracing an interventionist foreign policy.

quote:


3. Should politicians who have taken us to war or committed war crimes against foreign peoples in our name be held accountable for their deeds?


If it's done consistently and can be an effective deterrent against war crimes and atrocities in the future. We are bound by treaty to refrain from aggressive warfare, but interventionism is often justified by claiming that we're "defending ourselves or our allies," not engaging in aggression. So then it's a matter of determining whether the politicians were actually being truthful.

Of course, politicians never really want to take the blame for anything, so they'll either try to pin it on another politician or they might find someone in the lower ranks to take the fall.

quote:


4. Obviously a standing American President is not going to indict his predecessors, so should the United States have an independent war crimes tribunal as a fourth branch of government charged with holding our leaders accountable for their actions and demanding justification after they leave office?


It seems to appeal to one's sense of justice.

quote:


5. Is there any solution to this endless chain of U.S. foreign interventions?

6. Has democracy failed? The only post WW2 president who did not aggressively act against a foreign nation with unprovoked animus was Jimmy Carter. Jimmy gave us our only four years of peace since 1945. What does that say about our nation?



It says that we jumped too recklessly into world affairs without understanding it much or realizing what we were getting into.




Musicmystery -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/4/2015 6:36:14 AM)

What country did Clinton invade again?




Sanity -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/4/2015 6:44:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What country did Clinton invade again?




1992-1993 -- Somalia

Toward the end of the Bush administration, the United States sent approximately 25,000 troops to Somalia to assist the United Nations with the distribution of famine relief supplies. By the time Bill Clinton took office in 1993, U.S. troop levels had been vastly reduced, largely replaced with forces operating under the UN flag. However as UN clashes with local "warlords" increased, American troops became engaged in policing and wider peacekeeping operations. After 18 U.S. Rangers were killed in a firefight in Mogadishu on October 3, 1993, the United States briefly reinforced its troops but retreated from the more ambitious "nation-building" agenda previously outlined by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin. Criticized for having made decisions that may have contributed to the disaster, Aspin resigned two months later.


September 19, 1994 -- Invasion of Haiti

After negotiations and sanctions failed, Clinton sent U.S. troops to Haiti to restore ousted President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power and to head off a potential wave of Haitian refugees. A last-minute deal, brokered by former President Jimmy Carter, allowed the troops to go ashore unopposed by the Haitian military and police. Most U.S. troops withdrew within a year, though several hundred remained to pursue a wide agenda of peacekeeping, humanitarian and engineering activities. While Clinton administration officials consistently hailed the intervention as a model effort to restore democracy and promote stability abroad, political, economic and social conditions gradually eroded. In March 1999, the U.S. commander responsible for the remaining military personnel reportedly recommended ending the five-year military presence on the island due to continuing instability.



September 1995 -- Bosnia, (Operation Deliberate Force)

Following the deadly bombing of a Sarajevo marketplace, NATO forces launched the largest military action in the alliance's history. Two weeks of NATO air strikes, combined with a strong Croat-Muslim offensive on the ground, pushed Bosnian Serbs to the negotiating table. In November, all the warring parties met in Dayton, Ohio and agreed to a peace settlement. The airstrikes, painstakingly approved after years of negotiations with allies and the military, appear to support the position that limited military attacks can be useful diplomatic tools.



April 1999 -- (Operation Allied Force)

Citing Serb atrocities and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, the U.S. and NATO unleashed air attacks on Serbia after the failure of the "mini-Dayton" peace talks held in Rambouillet, France. President Clinton outlines no "exit strategies" and warns that air strikes will continue as long as necessary. From the start, the Clinton administration ruled out sending U.S. ground troops to the Balkans, though debate over the utility of air power alone repeatedly revives the issue. Vast floods of refugees spill into neighboring countries, threatening to enlarge the crisis and sparking criticism of the lack of contingency planning by NATO.

**********

President Clinton orders attack on Iraq

(Cue the small-minded personal attacks)




mnottertail -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/4/2015 6:57:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Dont be so stupid Vincent, there is no such thinbg as free speech unless you are a Republican. [;)]

Yeah, that's why you see Republicans out protesting when college campuses invite liberal speakers. Oh wait, that's right...that's the free speech-loving student Dems that do that when conservative speakers are invited.

Derail much?



quote:

University Pres. Scolds Students for Inviting Ann Coulter to Speak: ‘Disappointed’ Would Be ‘Tremendous Understatement’


Its called 'political correctness' when "liberals" attack free speech

No ideas or thinking allowed



No attack to free speech, she wanted a speakers fee. She is free to slobber anywhere she wants, but not for pay at that university.




vincentML -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/4/2015 9:49:58 AM)

quote:

And for all of Hanoi Jane's love for the people she sided with, I note that she never chose to live there. I note she certainly never renounced the benefits of living in this war-mongering country.


She took action as a private citizen to hasten the end of an inexcusable war that cost the lives of 50,000 American boys. Rather heroic. She never said she wanted to live in Vietnam or under a communist government. Jane was not responsible for the construction of the black marble faced memorial wall on the Mall. LBJ and those of us who stood by silently are culpable. The traitors were those members of Congress who authorized action on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and then allowed Nixon to continue to execute a tragic war. Another reason why Kissinger should be brought before a Judiciary hearing for war crimes.




vincentML -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/4/2015 9:58:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Jane Fonda was a traitor who gave the North Vietnamese information that helped them with interrogations.
She turned over notes given to her by POWs to the North Vietnamese.
She aided in making anti American propaganda, you remember the infamous picture of her on a Vietnamese anti aircraft gun?
She lied about the treatment of American prisoners when she returned to the states.
You might as well call Tokyo Rose a great American hero. Or Benedict Arnold.
And she encouraged them to kill more Americans so we would quit.

I remember the photo. Making anti-American propaganda is not treason; it is free speech. Tokyo Rose did not save lives. Different war; different morality.
Bottom line, Fonda and the anti-war movement hurried us out of a stupid and desperately self-imposed, national delusion. Takes guts to stand against the mob.

Fonda's behavior does not excuse Kissinger's crimes.
Nor do your beliefs excuse Fonda's actions.

And for all of Hanoi Jane's love for the people she sided with, I note that she never chose to live there. I note she certainly never renounced the benefits of living in this war-mongering country.



She has, however; renounced her actions in Vietnam. Not that it excuses them.
But with age comes wisdom.


No, she regretted the photograph is all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xclByDDEmVo




mnottertail -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/4/2015 10:08:30 AM)

I was referring to her 2005 (ABC 20-20) and 2012 (Vietnam veterans group) apologies. She said in those interviews that she apologized for some of the thoughtless and careless acts (like the picture).

Doesnt mean she was for Vietnam, or what it was about, she just wasn't against the servicemen.

I have used renounce where it was not the case, she didn't do that.




vincentML -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/4/2015 10:09:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Jane Fonda was a traitor who gave the North Vietnamese information that helped them with interrogations.
She turned over notes given to her by POWs to the North Vietnamese.
She aided in making anti American propaganda, you remember the infamous picture of her on a Vietnamese anti aircraft gun?
She lied about the treatment of American prisoners when she returned to the states.
You might as well call Tokyo Rose a great American hero. Or Benedict Arnold.
And she encouraged them to kill more Americans so we would quit.

I remember the photo. Making anti-American propaganda is not treason; it is free speech. Tokyo Rose did not save lives. Different war; different morality.
Bottom line, Fonda and the anti-war movement hurried us out of a stupid and desperately self-imposed, national delusion. Takes guts to stand against the mob.

Fonda's behavior does not excuse Kissinger's crimes.

Fonda was a traitor, in case you have forgotten it is giving aid and comfort to the enemy which she did. And she didn't stand against the mob she stood with it.
Kissinger on the other hand was conducting a war against a ruthless enemy.
The war was not so much stupid but grossly mismanaged by the Johnson administration.


Kissinger was conducting a war based upon erroneous Intel (sounds familiar don't it?) The Nixon administration broadened the mismanagement.

Aid and Comfort to the enemy? Or a bold stand by a patriot? The latter, I think.




vincentML -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/4/2015 10:10:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I was referring to her 2005 (ABC 20-20) and 2012 (Vietnam veterans group) apologies.


A link would be helpful.




mnottertail -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/4/2015 10:15:58 AM)

Yeah, dont see it out there, the actual video, that sort of stuff is not still around. However, there are lots of googleable articles on it still. I watched the episode then.


(I have revised and expanded my remarks from your quoting of me.)

here is snopes for one.

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

There are many more.




BamaD -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/4/2015 10:25:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

And for all of Hanoi Jane's love for the people she sided with, I note that she never chose to live there. I note she certainly never renounced the benefits of living in this war-mongering country.


She took action as a private citizen to hasten the end of an inexcusable war that cost the lives of 50,000 American boys. Rather heroic. She never said she wanted to live in Vietnam or under a communist government. Jane was not responsible for the construction of the black marble faced memorial wall on the Mall. LBJ and those of us who stood by silently are culpable. The traitors were those members of Congress who authorized action on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and then allowed Nixon to continue to execute a tragic war. Another reason why Kissinger should be brought before a Judiciary hearing for war crimes.

No she said she "longed for a communist victory", she lied about the treatment of US POWs on the ground that she "avoided, on principal, criticizing socialist governments" and you have not yet come up with an excuse for her helping the guards in the POW camps. And before you dismiss that charge keep in mind that I got my information from a man who was in one of the camps.




BamaD -> RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES? (2/4/2015 10:26:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Jane Fonda was a traitor who gave the North Vietnamese information that helped them with interrogations.
She turned over notes given to her by POWs to the North Vietnamese.
She aided in making anti American propaganda, you remember the infamous picture of her on a Vietnamese anti aircraft gun?
She lied about the treatment of American prisoners when she returned to the states.
You might as well call Tokyo Rose a great American hero. Or Benedict Arnold.
And she encouraged them to kill more Americans so we would quit.

I remember the photo. Making anti-American propaganda is not treason; it is free speech. Tokyo Rose did not save lives. Different war; different morality.
Bottom line, Fonda and the anti-war movement hurried us out of a stupid and desperately self-imposed, national delusion. Takes guts to stand against the mob.

Fonda's behavior does not excuse Kissinger's crimes.
Nor do your beliefs excuse Fonda's actions.

And for all of Hanoi Jane's love for the people she sided with, I note that she never chose to live there. I note she certainly never renounced the benefits of living in this war-mongering country.



She has, however; renounced her actions in Vietnam. Not that it excuses them.
But with age comes wisdom.


No, she regretted the photograph is all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xclByDDEmVo

So if Benedict Arnold had later said he regretted his actions all should have been forgiven.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625