George W Bush Is A War Criminal

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]vroom wrote:

Boston, the military would utilize one by putting them in harms way. Either risking death or killing others or supporting those that do so. It doesn’t take a supreme level of skill to pull a trigger or deliver supplies. They have this thing called training that prepares one to be a soldier. [/quote]

vroom:

No, they wouldn’t. They would use me as a lawyer. They would use you as a programmer. I live within 2 miles of the Pentagon, which is full of people being utilized by the military who are not in harms way. They are utilized based on the needs of the military, and based on their education and skills.

What makes you think the military would turn an engineer into a truck driver, or a computer programmer into an infantryman?

Do you think that if I were to walk up to a recruiter and give him my background and tell him I wanted to be special forces, I could just go be special forces? That’s taking it far, but you don’t dictate to the military how you are to be used, and they aren’t stupid – they will take advantage of previous training.

One can have an impact if one is in position to have an impact. If you’re like my buddy who signed up and is an airplane mechanic in Afghanistan, you’re a damn good airplane mechanic in Afghanistan, but you’re not in position to make the impact you’re suggesting.

The military will use you in the matter they think you are best used – whether that is a position of impact or not is not a consideration. And your previous training and skills will play into that. You’d be a programmer. I’d be a lawyer.

Everyone does. Because it’s an aggregation. The economy can handle a person dropping out just like the army can handle a person not signing up and your local university can handle a student dropping out. It’s in the aggregate that it matters – and each individual makes up the aggregate, and sets the tone for the aggregate. That’s why planners think about big picture things, and other people like us type on the internet.

Are you familiar with the idea of a straw man? I’m pretty sure you are. Before you answer though, I’d like you to refer to the answers above and count the number of times I explain that the idea isn’t whether a person is irreplacable or special. Go ahead, as I’m sure it won’t take too long – I only have made a handful of responses…

The idea is greatest marginal benefit per person, counting opportunity cost – and carrying that idea out in aggregate over the population. If you’re going to do a proper economic calculation, you will count the opportunity cost of lost production, count the cost of training a replacement (assuming there’s not a surplus of replacements properly trained), count the cost of training for the new employment, and credit the productivity in the new employment.

This is why they are calling up people who are already trained in the skills they want – people like MPs and people who train MPs. No training costs, and no time lost until they can be deployed. They’re not calling up reserves to put them on the front line, no matter what Elk or some TV reporter may tell you.

And so, once again, I’ll just assume that the planners – the Generals, the Defense Department, heck, even the staffers – know a bit more about what they want and need than you and Elk, and assume they will signal when they want more people to sign up.

See the straw man point above.

[quote] The other nitwits are of course correct that the economy is important. However, they are incorrect in thinking that individually their contribution matters. Given the number of people participating, not to mention capital equipment and business entities, one person is truly insignificant.

I’m certainly not arguing that the economy isn’t powerful or that it isn’t important or that it didn’t crush the old Soviet Union. However, surely these nitwits are aware that it is only in the macro sense that it has power. No, trying to convert my claim into one that the economy is not important is just silly. [/quote]

There is no macro per se. Just the aggregation of micro. It’s a good thing to keep in mind.

[quote]You place your trust in people who refuse to admit adversity, pretend everything is going well when it isn’t and who are unwilling to assume any responsibility for out of control situations after they lay out the ground rules that allow it to happen.

Good for you.

What you will continue to do is talk about general principles and convince yourself you are doing something useful with respect to the war against terrorism when you are doing no more or less than I am. Isn’t that a crock. Your neighborhood “ultra-liberal” is able to offer just as much contribution to the effort as you are. [/quote]

As far as the economy is concerned, that’s correct. And that’s one of the best things about this country – everyone can contribute irrespective of his beliefs.

YOu don’t like the leaders, you don’t like the government, and you think they’re wrong. Good for you. I think they’re correct – and, in case you hadn’t noticed, we’re winning.

So by all means I wish to keep with the general thrust of what they’re doing. If they want more help in the field, they’ll let us know. Have you seen one thing that indicates higher recruitment? One thing that indicates a serious consideration of reviving a draft (in other words, not a draft bill introduced by opponents of the Iraq War)? Until then, people help better by offering their maximum utilities.

This is true. But I think pre-emption is not a doctrine that should be dismissed out of hand, and my views on Iraq have been expressed ad nauseum.

[quote] Unless something dramatic were to change there is no danger to the US or the US way of life. There is no need for you to interrupt your job and be inconvenienced by risking your life for something that isn’t vital to the survival of your country.

Just admit you aren’t personally vital to the economy of your nation and that you aren’t contributing jack-shit to the war effort other than giving to charity and I’ll stop bugging you about it. [/quote]

See the whole straw man thing above, which by now I’ve repeated ad nauseum. I know you’re not this dense, so you must be doing this on purpose.

As to contributing, I’m contributing what’s been asked of us – and will continue to do so as that sacrifice either mounts or diminishes. Luckily for everyone, you and Elk are not in charge of figuring out how to manage resources.

I’ll just keep supporting the troops in my way. You keep doing whatever it is you’re doing.

122

vroom,

Do you always stammer, and resort to name calling after getting your ass handed to you? It seems to me you acted very similarly after JPBear whooped up on you.

You are a relativist, and every time you open your mouth on these threads you prove it. Or you don’t prove it. If you look at both sides, maybe one could see where you do prove it and don’t prove it at the same time. Maybe if we could just understand where you are coming from we could all prove it together.

123

Vroom

Unfortunately I have a different take on the subject. It is the T-Nation site. I guess I am just still full of T at 42!

You seemed to have given up hope, based on your writing. I am an important part of everyone I touch. My family, my employees, my church and community. Would I be replaced if I was gone. I guess so. Would it be the same or as I like to think, as good as me. No f-ing way.

Not to throw the nationalistic card down on the table. but in my travels aboroad that is one of the reasons people hate us around the world. American feel they can always suceed and don’t need permission to do so.

So I am off to add to the economy my small but incremental portion of the GDP. Have a good day all!

124

What a bunch of self-important blowhards. Good lord, I can hardly believe it.

Then we have shit hawks in here with no purpose other than to pounce on me in the middle of a debate if they can muddle through the posts and somehow determine I’ve “lost” a point.

You know, I think it is shameful to call living your life like there is nothing going on “contributing” to the war effort in a meaningful way.

I know they are over there so that we can live our lives like this… but simply doing so is not contributing. I’m simply apalled at the self-importance and self-justification I am seeing.

Play word games all you like. I’m not playing politics here. It is disgusting.

125

News flash:

There is a branch of economics known as “macro” economics. Whether or not you like the concept of macroeconomics, it very much does exist.

I’m guessing you didn’t focus on economics during your eduction as a lawyer?

126

As for skills.

If I joined the military, with a degree, I’d generally be an officer. This would mean I’d lead a group of men to achieve objectives.

Likely, given my skills, I’d be involved in communications or intelligence, which deals with electronics in some capacity. I highly doubt I would sit around writing software for the military.

Yes, I know there is a time lag, if you or I joined today you it may be too late to be used in Iraq or Afghanistan. However, Iraq may not be over, and there may be Iran or North Korea to follow, who can say. The war on terror is far from finished.

To ignore the relative size differential of the economy versus the war is silly in the extreme.

127

[quote]vroom wrote:
News flash:

There is a branch of economics known as “macro” economics. Whether or not you like the concept of macroeconomics, it very much does exist.

I’m guessing you didn’t focus on economics during your eduction as a lawyer?[/quote]

I have an undergrad degree in management science from UC San Diego – management science is basically economics with a finance emphasis.

Would you care to discuss the inherent problems with macro economics?

128

Contribution Defined.

When I am talking about making a personal contribution to the war effort I am not talking about participating in the economy. I am talking about making some type of sacrifice – that is what contributing to a war effort entails.

Everybody is participating in the economy to one degree or another. Maximizing your financial impact (trivial as it may be) on the economy is not increasing your contribution to the war, only your participation in the economy.

Hell, most of us are trying to maximize our impact on the economy, it’s called earning a living and chasing the American dream. It’s great. It’s normal. I’m not criticizing it. However, it isn’t making a sacrifice to support the war effort – it’s just living your life.

I do understand that there is a trivial contribution involved simply by participating in the economy, via taxation and so on, but I would not class that as “making a contribution”. Perhaps that is where the disagreement is stemming from?

129

[quote]vroom wrote:
I do understand that there is a trivial contribution involved simply by participating in the economy, via taxation and so on, but I would not class that as “making a contribution”. Perhaps that is where the disagreement is stemming from?[/quote]

You can’t separate the micro from the macro. You want to use micro-economic examples to prove that no one individual has an impact on macro-economic conditions. Of course your argument is true, but totally irrelevant.

You continue to minimize the efforts of individuals and the micro-economic contributions, seemingly without understanding that macro is nothing more than a bunch of micros lumped together, sharing the same behavioral patterns so as to give the appearance of one big organism.

Tip O’Neal once said that all politics are local - so are economies.

You are trying to relate military strategies to a science dedicated to the best-guessing of human behavior. It doesn’t make sense to me - but go ahead and slay the windmill if you must.

And by the way - I wasn’t keeping score, I was commenting on your oh-so-predictable behavior.

130

[quote]vroom wrote:
Contribution Defined.

When I am talking about making a personal contribution to the war effort I am not talking about participating in the economy. I am talking about making some type of sacrifice – that is what contributing to a war effort entails.

Everybody is participating in the economy to one degree or another. Maximizing your financial impact (trivial as it may be) on the economy is not increasing your contribution to the war, only your participation in the economy.

Hell, most of us are trying to maximize our impact on the economy, it’s called earning a living and chasing the American dream. It’s great. It’s normal. I’m not criticizing it. However, it isn’t making a sacrifice to support the war effort – it’s just living your life.

I do understand that there is a trivial contribution involved simply by participating in the economy, via taxation and so on, but I would not class that as “making a contribution”. Perhaps that is where the disagreement is stemming from?[/quote]

I’d say that the definitional issue is definitely part of it.

I think the other part is that there is no credit given for supporting the troops, making them feel appreciated and that the citizenry is with them. That and completely discounting the contribution to charities that specifically help members of the military and their families.

Not everyone is going to make the contribution of a soldier. However, some would be much more likely to make a contribution on that level if it were actually asked of them by the Commander in Chief.

Look at wars in the last century. Going back to conflicts the size and scope of the world wars, the economies were basically commandeered by the President and Congress to help with the war effort. People (most anyway – you can go back and find lawsuits on it) dealt with having their capital and labor taken by the government for the war, and with rationing of supplies of food and all sorts of strategic items such as steel and gasoline. I’m less certain of this, but I believe such measures were also taken, to a lesser extent, to support the Korean War.

In this conflict, the powers that be have not indicated in any manner that this sort of sacrifice is necessary on the economic level. However, if taxes were raised or gasoline rationed, or other measures imposing economic sacrifices were thought necessary, I would support such measures.

With respect to volunteering to serve, this, again, is not something for which a need has been indicated by the Commander in Chief or the military. There have not been calls for enlistment. There have not been serious talks of reinstituting a draft.

What the President has talked about is working for economic growth. If this is how they want the citizens to support the effort, then, yes, I count that as support for the war effort. It is not comparable to the size of the contribution of a soldier, but it reflects how the strategic planners feel about the needs of the country and the military.

I would encourage everyone to go further and support the military charities, and to let the soldiers know they are appreciated – which, of course, is one thing that giving to the charities lets them know.

Should the President call for more enlistments and for everyone to do his part in that way, then the calculus would change. But for now, I count “supporting the war” as doing what the President has asked us to do, and supporting further sacrifices as asked.

131

Boston,

Other than claiming a contribution where there is none, I have no issue. Actually, if you are giving to charity, that is a sacrifice if it is more than a token, and I can respect that. Good for you.

While we may agree that macroeconomics has problems, it is often the tool used by governments to influence economy, productivity and tax revenue.

Every science or system has limits and problems, but that does not invalidate the known within it. Hell, medicine has problems, but that doesn’t stop much of it from being practical.

I’d be very happy to discuss macroeconomics or microeconomics, as they are both things that have had a lot of my attention over the years.

I don’t want to sound like I’m bragging, but my background too contains a great deal of economics. Such that I had to choose between being granted a degree in economics or a degree in computer science.

What is this, bullying through education or brainpower or something?

You know, when I was younger, I sounded pretty much like you do. I was a cheerleader for the Reagen administration and it is at about that time that I was challenged and learned to open my eyes to deeper issues.

Also, when I was having great success, out of the gates so to speak, in my career, I felt I could do no wrong and that those “other” people could contribute in their way while I would do mine. I felt special and important and significant. I’ve since tasted some failure and learned some valuable lessons in the last five years. I’ve softened.

Anyway, no administration or government can be trusted to be benevolent. The US, in my opinion, was not meant to impose its will in foreign wars, which gets dangerously close to the imperialism it was created to escape (it is the DUTY of the populace to point this out and try to steer the nation via reasoned discourse). Nobody, short of someone putting their life on the line, is special or significant except in a personal way to those around them.

While I disagree with the reasons for this war and wish it had not started, I have every respect for the soldiers over there and support them 100% (we have only 100% to give). We now have a job to finish and lets hope it finishes well. The day we can stop asking our youth to sacrifice their lives for a partially ungrateful populace that may or may not accept democracy will be a good day. If that area does accept democracy and become a model nation, so much the better.

I agreed with the war on Afghanistan and had hoped that Osama and other top level leaders would be caught.

Finally, whether or not preemptive warfare against nations is a doctrine that will be accepted in the world remains to be seen. I’d suggest that if other nations attempted to use this doctrine the US would object violently - for example North Korea deciding South Korea was a threat or some Middle Eastern country acting against Isreal because it may be likely to attack one of their allies.

The actions of the US don’t occur in a vacuum and the ramifications of the policies when applied to other countries (such as Russia and China) need to be considered as well. Russia and especially China has the size to ignore the protestations of the US if it wishes to.

He may not be a criminal, but Bush has tried to take a peek into Pandora’s box a few times now. He’s happy to erode civil rights in the name of safety. He’s happy to ignore international law and precedent in the name of safety. He’s happy to ignore current scientific leanings in the name of profits.

I think of lot of people panicked due to the events of 9/11 and anthrax scare. From an untouchable perfectly safe populace people have knee-jerked into a state of perceived persecution and fear. It is probable that neither viewpoint is correct. It is probable that policies effected due to either extreme viewpoint are similarly in danger of being somewhat incorrect.

132

Vroom,

You express what I feel in a much more positive and refined way then I can. I have much respect for you! Keep it up!

133

I don’t know Elk, so far I’ve been called a relativist, an elitist, an ultra-liberal and even a libertarian… while at the same time I’m supposedly either hate filled or fatalistic with no ability to be optimistic.

Apparently I’ve got quite a few demons to slay.

My favorite though was being the sole occupant of Jeff’s ignore box. Now that someone else is going to join me I don’t feel so unique and valuable anymore. Ha!

134

[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t know Elk, so far I’ve been called a relativist, an elitist, an ultra-liberal and even a libertarian… while at the same time I’m supposedly either hate filled or fatalistic with no ability to be optimistic.

Apparently I’ve got quite a few demons to slay.

My favorite though was being the sole occupant of Jeff’s ignore box. Now that someone else is going to join me I don’t feel so unique and valuable anymore. Ha![/quote]

Hey Vroom,
You forgot Canadian…to Jeff your practically French : )

I wonder how many ignore boxes I’m in?

135

i hope not to sound like an ass here, but i’m going to try to be realistic. the nuremberg trials, yes, they were partially inacted because immoral things occured in world war II, but the big thing was we wanted to tear down the nazi party on all levels, in the military and political sense. by labeling them as criminals and locking them up, we were able to put who we wanted in charge there. the geneva convention is no different. they say we’re all supposed to play by the rules, but its been known even since when sun tzu wrote the “art of war” that playing by rules isn’t gonna be what wins the war. war crime charges are just grounds on which we can attack the loser. and well, i don’t see america losing this war, so i don’t think that’s gonna really be a problem. there will be a case or two here or there of prisoner mistreatment, but it will be rather insignificant as compared to the charges that our enemies will face. now, normally, i think we could have just passed enough UN resolutions to economically strangle iraq and force saddam out that way. but, that wasn’t the case, the case was that saddam had his hand up france’s ass like a puppeteer so france wasn’t going to let enough resolutions go by to do that. and it is better to get rid of saddam when we did than wait for him to become a bigger problem. frankly, i wish clinton would have sent troops in there back when saddam bull shitted the inspectors during that administration. now, is it something of a mess there right now? possibly. are our forces stretched a lil thin? probably, but iraq’s own security force is building up, so that problem should be self adjusting soon. bush is not my favorite president, but i feel this is one area where he isn’t failing. i honestly feel that bush isn’t the strongest economically, but he’s not so bad the country will collapse within 4 years, but i do think that by the end of bush’s next term, we’ll be bringing home troops from iraq and that the mess will be cleaned up. so for all the anti-bush ppl out there, yea, he’s got some weak points, oh well, let him do what he’s good at, get this messed cleaned up, and if you’re still dissatisfied at the economy 4 years from now, then put a democrat in. that’s my very long two cents.

136

Fun thread, guys. I love it when the crips and bloods pull their gats! Elk, are you still wearing that red do-rag?

137

Red do rag! A blood? No my friend, I’m down with La Eme.

138

I’m a few days late to this bitch fest, but what the hell.

Flanker- “…killing an soldier who was injured…” What uniform did he have on? What was his rank? If you were a soldier and a soldier in a different uniform with a gauze on his arm was pointing a gun at you would you shoot him or accept your fate as a dead non-war criminal, albeit a morally superior one?

Go down to the local high school, keep your eyes off of the teenage girls and follow the geeky looking kids to the science wing and take a chemistry class, please.

“Kofi Annan declared the US led war against Iraq illegal.” Was that a serious statement or a joke? I’ll bet he’s had no major problem with the Oil for Bribes Program, although he was a little upset with the whole Rwanda thing. The Sudan troubles him a bit too I’m sure, but not enough to do something, anything about. Is he going to order the Belgians, with their reputation for ferocity, and chocolate, to arrest Dubbya and try him?. Don’t they have laws about that sort of stuff?
Wasn’t it the lib Kinsley who wrote something about the real tragedy being not about what was illegal, but what folks could legally get away with? The UN in a nutshell.

“…large number of people tortured…” as compared to what, the percentage tortured, and not just fucked with, by the previous occupants?

Which of course gets to the heart of the Eurotrash argument. America has gotten into bed and cozied up with all sorts of right-wing dictators and not so nice guys, and we are better than them because we didn’t. So there. Well, Swiss-American, just where do they stash their ill-gotten gains? What mountain country is known for bankers with very quiet tongues?

And why did we deal with such unsavory characters in the first place? Because Europe, along with lots of great ideas, has given us so very shitty ones, which embroiled them in some big-time conflicts called World Wars, which we had to go and sort out for them. The last one left a very mean and powerful state threatening their effete governments and 35 hours workweeks and six weeks paid vacations. So Uncle Sam had to fight a world-wide proxy war for position and resources, enlisting so not so good guys in the process. That’s how the world works. We didn’t just do it for the hell of it, as the Eurotrash argument implies. Either that, or they don’t think that the Soviet Union was such a bad thing. Fine, for those who believe so, we can play a game called Gulag, where I get to be the guard and you get to be the zek. Trust me, like you trusted the Worker’s Paradise, it will be fun- for me.

They hate us. Of course they do. As a product of declining, corrupt, inept, backwards societies force fed lies, deceit, and hatred why wouldn’t they? These societies are morally equivalent to the good ole US of A, don’t you know. They have women’s, minorities, and religious rights, just like we do. How dare we critize them.

UN Resolutions- who gives a fuck? Enforce them if they are so important. Oh, no one can because as a God fearin’ capitalist democracy that built out the debris of other societies we are too powerful to fuck with and not pay a price too high.

“…simple truth of the matter is that in the global sense I’m a member of the moral majority.” Again, is that a serious statement or meant to be a joke? Good to know that you stand with all of those Europeans who wet the bed when those Israelis nail some murderous bastards who publically revile that fact while what, two million and counting have been slaughtered in the Sudan and they couldn’t really be bothered to care? Besides, at the end of the day, are the Israelis worse to the Palistinians than the PLO? I doubt it.

Besides, there is no such thing as international law save the law or reciprocity. Chew on that one for a while libs.

obofill- “no f’n clue as to how to invade a country.”
“I am no military strategist.”
“…make them look stupid with your mind…”

That is a hell of a trifecta. And ‘they’ would be not you of course. We many not be the best at this whole occupation thing, but that was about as good as its going to get for an invasion. Perhaps the French could teach us a few thing from their Algerian adventure.

On to the whole BB- Vroom- Elk debate. If you want cred on the econ thing bro, I’ve got two degrees in the dismal science. Who ought to give a shit, though, the argument should speak for itself.

If BB were to go down and sign up with Uncle Sam, they would probably test him for apptitude. If he tests out with the highest probablity of being a logistical genius or a master strategist, his service in that capacity will save the lives of more than a few 19 year old Gunny worshipping Rambo wannabes. Only the dead, some Greek guy said thousands of years ago, have seen the end of war. So let’s not have the we shouldn’t have done this or that argument. Trouble will find us eventually- we should accept it and prepare as best as possible.

BB’s, or more to the point, my point- casualty ratios, ten to twenty to one on the offensive against a dug-in enemy on his turf, are a function of wealth, which is generated by our economic system- capitalism, God Bless It! With it, we can have more and better stuff and can train longer and more throughly and trade that for the lives of fresh-faced 18 year olds with fond memories of finger-banging Susie Rotten Crotch in the back seat of Daddy’s Buick out in the cornfields (shameless theft in my part). And that is why it is better to have the BB’s of the world mostly likely not go ground pounding in the next war. Macro, after all, can only be built on micro, what you and I do with what we have. You put the BB’s of the world where they can aid your effort the most, not where they can build the most cred in the eyes of their opponents in an internet bitch fest.

Vroom- I said, to the best of my recollection, that you sounded like a libertarian, because I think that you did. Absolutely no shame in that, which I think is the most T-mannish political philosophy- Leave me the fuck alone and I’ll figure it out, and accept the price if I don’t.

Of course Uncle Sam has fucked up, fucks up now, and will fuck up in the future. I can’t imagine what the French, for instance, would do with our might. For one, I can’t imagine them being that competent in the first place, and secondly, I can’t envision a world in which they would try to force the rest of us to learn the French national anthem. But then again, they didn’t do that in Algeria, did they, just like they didn’t torture anyone there either. More sensitive and nuanced, dare one say European, souls indeed, just like in the Ivory Coast now.

Have at me boys, invective and all.

139

[quote]
Lots of our founding fathers were foreign)[/quote]
[splitting hairs]Every one of your founding fathers were foreign, unless you are a native american.[/splitting hairs]

140

Schrauper, I’m not buying it! We need certain geniuses around, so even if they are rabidly in support of a war that many feel is not necessary they should be excluded! And you guys talk about elitist!

I was hesitant to respond to your post because many will think it is beating a dead horse, but I will say it one more time. If you are able bodied and can pass muster on your physical exam and you believe this war is a just cause, then IN MY OPINION you should be doing your part. They have enough people in the rear who do technical or other rear echelon type duties. Where they are short and in need of bodies is in front line units!

Again call me stupid, uneducated, crazy, but in my view it is hypocritical, lazy, cowardly, to be a cheerleader for this war while kicking back and enjoying the good life! I can admire someone like Pat Tillman who stood behind his beliefs to the ultimate degree and walked away from comfort few of us will ever know to back those beliefs up!

I think we have enough intelligent people in the States that a few more could possibly not come back from war and we’ll still get by in the grand scheme of things.

Now you can have at it and dice me up at will!