A Winter Soldier's Tale - WARNING! some graphic video shots - disturbing

[BT]

There are some apologists for war crimes and atrocities, and for this army of criminals

I seem to recall you saying Turner was a small fish, not worth going after.

I seem to recall me saying i looked forward to his trial concerning his confessed crime.

Who is the apologist?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I have known a lot of Marines , decency is very common with them.

==========================
It is one thing to be decent, and rather another to be able to denounce the Corps. I imagine that denouncing atrocities committed by fellow Corpsmen might be considered quite indecent.

[Plane]

I have known a lot of Marines , decency is very common with them.

==========================
It is one thing to be decent, and rather another to be able to denounce the Corps. I imagine that denouncing atrocities committed by fellow Corpsmen might be considered quite indecent.

You have known a lot of Marines?

I don't think them incapable of crime , I just think them less liable to crime than the less disciplined.

If this soldier is guilty of heinous crimes and knows of other heinous crime , then let it all go to trial or courts martial.

That is better than having a feud on the street .

But Saying that catching this guy in a confessed crime proves all his comrades are the same , is like catching a shark and concluding that all fish are sharks , or catching a professor in a crime and concluding that all professors are criminals.

I know that Sharks seldom tell on each other , but do proffessors cover for each others wrongdoing?

[Michael Tee]

<<Who is the apologist?>>

You are.  You want to go after the small fish who killed one guy to keep the spotlight off the major war criminals who started the war and killed hundreds of thousands.  And you use ridiculous arguments shamelessly each time one of these crimes (against all odds) does surface to attempt to prove that it's an aberration rather than the systemic problem that it all too obviously is.

[Michael Tee]

<<I don't think them incapable of crime , I just think them less liable to crime than the less disciplined.>>

That is the whole point - - the commission of war crimes is endemic because of a lack of discipline.  And the discipline is lax because the war criminals at the head of the enterprise don't give a shit about war crimes committed.  How could they, when they are themselves war criminals?

[BT]

You want to go after the small fish who killed one guy to keep the spotlight off the major war criminals who started the war and killed hundreds of thousands.

Where did i ever state that?

I say get all the fish. Let's start with the ones bragging about their crimes. Then let's go after those others who have actually committed crimes.

[Michael Tee]

<<I say get all the fish. Let's start with the ones bragging about their crimes. Then let's go after those others who have actually committed crimes.>>

Define "actually committed crimes." 

Do you believe that a criminal investigation should be commenced into the actions of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and other high administration officials to determine whether any of them committed the crimes of planning and waging a war of aggression, ordering or permitting torture or other illegal treatment of human beings including prisoners of U.S. forces, and human rights abuses by delivering persons up for torture by agents of foreign governments?

Do you believe that similar investigations be commenced into the actions of the top military commanders of U.S. forces in Iraq and their closest associates and subordinates?

[BT]

Define "actually committed crimes." 

Lets start with shooting the fat guy civilian off his bike.

Do you believe that a criminal investigation should be commenced into the actions of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and other high administration officials to determine whether any of them committed the crimes of planning and waging a war of aggression, ordering or permitting torture or other illegal treatment of human beings including prisoners of U.S. forces, and human rights abuses by delivering persons up for torture by agents of foreign governments?

Do you believe that similar investigations be commenced into the actions of the top military commanders of U.S. forces in Iraq and their closest associates and subordinates?

No.

[Michael Tee]

It's pretty obvious, BT, that you are interested in going after the small fish only and not the real criminals who caused the war and permitted the atrocities to occur on their watch.

As I said previously, in a slightly different way, this is like going after the guy who let the gas into the gas chamber, while ignoring the actual architects of the Holocaust, who planned and organized the whole thing.

It's a very peculiar concept of justice which, thankfully, was not shared by the Allied Powers at the conclusion of WWII.  It seems to be the concept favoured by the Bush administration and its suporters, which is not very surprising, since the administration itself is composed, I would say almost exclusively, of war criminals.

[BT]

What's pretty obvious to me is you are more interested in venting political anger, calling that with which you disagree, criminal.

Bush is a criminal but Stalin wasn't.

Your inconsistency is consistent.

[Michael Tee]

What's pretty obvious to me is you are more interested in venting political anger, calling that with which you disagree, criminal.

Bush is a criminal but Stalin wasn't.

Your inconsistency is consistent.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

HEY, nice distraction!  STALIN?  in a discussion of American war crimes in Iraq?  Not bad.  Of course, I am not going to get suckered into a discussion of Stalin's alleged crimes in THIS thread, so suffice to say, yes, Bush IS a war criminal and no, Stalin is not and never was.  Or if he was, it was on a much lower level than Bush.  Finland apart, Stalin did NOT launch a war of unprovoked aggression against anyone, unlike Bush.

And now back to our topic and sorry for that short digression, folks.

<<What's pretty obvious to me is you are more interested in venting political anger, calling that with which you disagree, criminal.
>>

Yes, congratulations, you have correctly assessed my motivation in discussing the subject: anger.  I could legitimately ask you for your motivation, now that you've raised the subject, but I'm really not that interested.  Would you like to get back to the topic under discussion, the relative criminality of those who instituted the war, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, measured against that of the dumb schmuck Turner, who pulled the trigger on one fat guy on a bike?

[BT]

I've already answered that..... i do not think the administrations actions were criminal.

Some of their actions were inept, the occupation the first couple years was a cluster, but once they pulled the string on a full blown counterinsurgency things seem to be going pretty well.

[Plane]

"
. .. Finland apart, Stalin did NOT launch a war of unprovoked aggression against anyone, unlike Bush....      "

Iraq apart, neither has Bush.

Bush is not useing any methods that would shock Stalin or embarras Beria.

[Michael Tee]

<<Iraq apart, neither has Bush.>>

Well, there goes the ball game.  If, as you now admit, Bush has launched a war of unprovoked aggression against Iraq, he is by definition a war criminal, as are those of his cabinet who assisted in the effort.  Yet you insist on prosecuting the small fry while letting the really big fish get away.  Someone criminally responsible for the death of one man gets the hammer, those criminally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands get a pass. 

<<Bush is not useing any methods that would shock Stalin or embarras Beria.>>

I don't agree with that, but I won't argue the point.  Beria and Stalin are long past the point where they can be punished for anything they may have done.  They have nothing to do with the issue of Bush's criminality.  Whatever they may have done was in defence of the Socialist Motherland against racism and fascism.  Whatever Bush has done was done for greed.  And even THAT'S irrelevant, going only to why Michael Tee thinks Bush is a criminal and Stalin is not.  Returning to the subject at hand, it's even more obvious than ever why you are so insistent on prosecuting the small fry and letting the big fish off the hook.

[Michael Tee]

<<but once they pulled the string on a full blown counterinsurgency things seem to be going pretty well.>>

How are things going pretty well?  The insurgents are lying low, the troops can't be pulled out, the financial drain is continuing.  You know and the insurgents know that your financial predicament is worsening day by day and the plug will have to be pulled sooner or later.  I'd say you're whistling in the dark.