Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If You Murdered A Bunch Of People, Mass Murder Is Your Single Defining Legacy

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by buzzardmountain View Post
    That’s the link for the Iraq War that GWB started. GHWB killed 100k too! Yay
    When GWB dies, Lew can write this article and I won't object.

    Pete (thinks there are big differences there)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by skooly View Post
      Haha, this was vintage Robin circa 2003-2005 on the my350z.com website. I heard it a lot if I can remember it all these years later.

      skooly (appreciates your candor)
      Maybe you’re thinking of someone else??? “Not supporting the troops” really doesn’t sound like something I'd say. At least I hope I wouldn’t say something that f^cking stupid. If you run across a comment let me know.
      Originally posted by Mr. Raceboy
      I'm a lot more worried about the commies running DC than I am about commies half way around the world.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post

        When GWB dies, Lew can write this article and I won't object.

        Pete (thinks there are big differences there)
        So it only sounds like you object to the article because there were far worse things GHWB did? What would those be?

        Being in the CIA and killing JFK? Maybe since he’s dead the government will stop postponing the release of the JFK files that Trump postponed. They’ll be redacted to hell any way.

        Organizing the smuggling of drugs from South America into the US to pay for weapons? Iran Contra? The systemic destruction of the black community with said drugs.

        What in your opinion should the article had focused on? Thanks Pete
        Originally posted by Mr. Raceboy
        I'm a lot more worried about the commies running DC than I am about commies half way around the world.

        Comment


        • #19
          Ah yes, that most noble first gulf war for cheap oil, war sold to the public on a host of myths and lies...

          Saddam Was Irrational

          Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait was just as illegal as the US invasion that would ultimately oust him 13 years later — it was neither an act of self-defense, nor did the UN Security Council authorize it.

          But it can be argued that Iraq had significantly more justification for its attack.

          Kuwait had been a close ally of Iraq, and a top financier of the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980, which, as The New York Times reported, occurred after “Iran’s revolutionary government tried to assassinate Iraqi officials, conducted repeated border raids and tried to topple Mr. Hussein by fomenting unrest within Iraq.”

          Saddam Hussein felt that Kuwait should forgive part of his regime’s war debt because he had halted the “expansionist plans of Iranian interests” not only on behalf of his own country, but in defense of the other Gulf Arab states as well.

          After an oil glut knocked out about two-thirds of the value of a barrel of crude oil between 1980 and 1986, Iraq appealed to OPEC to limit crude oil production in order to raise prices — with oil as low as $10 per barrel, the government was struggling to pay its debts. But Kuwait not only resisted those efforts — and asked OPEC to increase its quotas by 50 percent instead — for much of the 1980s it also had maintained its own production well above OPEC’s mandatory quota. According to a study by energy economist Mamdouh Salameh, “between 1985 and 1989, Iraq lost US$14 billion a year due to Kuwait’s oil price strategy,” and “Kuwait’s refusal to decrease its oil production was viewed by Iraq as an act of aggression against it.”

          There were additional disputes between the two countries centering on Kuwait’s exploitation of the Rumaila oil fields, which straddled the border between the two countries. Kuwait was accused of using a technique known as “slant-drilling” to siphon off oil from the Iraqi side.

          None of this justifies Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. But a longstanding and complex dispute between two undemocratic petrostates wasn’t likely to inspire Americans to accept the loss of their sons and daughters in a distant fight.

          So instead, George HW Bush told the public that Iraq’s invasion was “without provocation or warning,” and that “there is no justification whatsoever for this outrageous and brutal act of aggression.” He added: “Given the Iraqi government’s history of aggression against its own citizens as well as its neighbors, to assume Iraq will not attack again would be unwise and unrealistic.”

          Ultimately, these longstanding disputes between Iraq and Kuwait got considerably less attention in the American media than did (false) tales of Kuwaiti babies being ripped out of incubators by Saddam’s stormtroopers.

          Saddam Was “Unstoppable”

          A crucial diplomatic error on the part of the first Bush administration left Saddam Hussein with the impression that the US government had little interest in Iraq’s conflict with Kuwait. But that didn’t fit into the narrative that the Iraqi dictator was an irrational maniac bent on regional domination. So there was a concerted effort to deny that the US government had ever had a chance to deter his aggression through diplomatic means — and even to paint those who said otherwise as conspiracy theorists.

          As John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago and Harvard’s Stephen Walt wrote in 2003, “Saddam reportedly decided on war sometime in July 1990, but before sending his army into Kuwait, he approached the United States to find out how it would react.”
          In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, “[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had “no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.” The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did.

          Exactly what was said during the meeting has been a source of some controversy. Accounts differ. According to a transcriptreleased by the Iraqi government, Glaspie told Hussein, ” I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country.”
          I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

          I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60’s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction.

          Leslie Gelb of The New York Times reported that Glaspie told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the transcript was inaccurate “and insisted she had been tough.” But that account was contradicted when diplomatic cables between Baghdad and Washington were released. As Gelb described it, “The State Department instructed Ms. Glaspie to give the Iraqis a conciliatory message punctuated with a few indirect but significant warnings,” but “Ms. Glaspie apparently omitted the warnings and simply slobbered all over Saddam in their meeting on July 25, while the Iraqi dictator threatened Kuwait anew.”

          There is no dispute about one crucially important point: Saddam Hussein consulted with the US before invading, and our ambassador chose not to draw a line in the sand, or even hint that the invasion might be grounds for the US to go to war.

          The most generous interpretation is that each side badly misjudged the other. Hussein ordered the attack on Kuwait confident that the US would only issue verbal condemnations. As for Glaspie, she later told The New York Times, ”Obviously, I didn’t think — and nobody else did — that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.”
          Plenty of more examples in the thorough article.
          https://billmoyers.com/2014/06/27/th...-pack-of-lies/
          Last edited by dusty; 12-06-2018, 02:40 AM.
          For every ailment under the sun - There is a remedy, or there is none;
          If there be one, try to find it; If there be none, never mind it. -- Mother Goose

          "We’ve always assumed that you can’t bring back the dead. But it’s a matter of when you pickle the cells." -- Peter Rhee

          Comment


          • #20
            U.S. bombs also destroyed essential Iraqi civilian infrastructure — from electricity-generating and water-treatment facilities to food-processing plants and flour mills. This was no accident. As Barton Gellman of the Washington Post reported in June 1991: “Some targets, especially late in the war, were bombed primarily to create postwar leverage over Iraq, not to influence the course of the conflict itself. Planners now say their intent was to destroy or damage valuable facilities that Baghdad could not repair without foreign assistance. … Because of these goals, damage to civilian structures and interests, invariably described by briefers during the war as ‘collateral’ and unintended, was sometimes neither.”

            Got that? The Bush administration deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure for “leverage” over Saddam Hussein. How is this not terrorism? As a Harvard public health team concluded in June 1991, less than four months after the end of the war, the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure had resulted in acute malnutrition and “epidemic” levels of cholera and typhoid.

            By January 1992, Beth Osborne Daponte, a demographer with the U.S. Census Bureau, was estimating that Bush’s Gulf War had caused the deaths of 158,000 Iraqis, including 13,000 immediate civilian deaths and 70,000 deaths from the damage done to electricity and sewage treatment plants. Daponte’s numbers contradicted the Bush administration’s, and she was threatened by her superiors with dismissal for releasing “false information.” (Sound familiar?)
            https://theintercept.com/2018/12/01/...on-of-justice/
            For every ailment under the sun - There is a remedy, or there is none;
            If there be one, try to find it; If there be none, never mind it. -- Mother Goose

            "We’ve always assumed that you can’t bring back the dead. But it’s a matter of when you pickle the cells." -- Peter Rhee

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post

              When GWB dies, Lew can write this article and I won't object.

              Pete (thinks there are big differences there)
              I thought Pete was like the only Putter who supported the second gulf war? We needed to do something big after 9/11 or some other similar nonsense reasoning. Have you changed your mind?
              For every ailment under the sun - There is a remedy, or there is none;
              If there be one, try to find it; If there be none, never mind it. -- Mother Goose

              "We’ve always assumed that you can’t bring back the dead. But it’s a matter of when you pickle the cells." -- Peter Rhee

              Comment


              • #22
                Pete and Jon were both big proponents of the Second Gulf War and, in fact, coined the small-L "libertarian" moniker to distinguish themselves from the Libertarian Party, which opposed that war.
                "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by dusty View Post

                  I thought Pete was like the only Putter who supported the second gulf war? We needed to do something big after 9/11 or some other similar nonsense reasoning. Have you changed your mind?
                  I'm giving Lew Rockwell his fundamental premise, which is that those who wage offensive wars are mass murderers. However, I count the first gulf war as an inherently defensive (or at least retaliatory) war and think it in no way fits that definition. Further the war was exectued through all the proper channels, with UN backing and the support of virtually all the other nations in the world. Therefore I'm disputing Rockwell's statement based on his premises, not mine.

                  Pete (does not share Rockwell's beliefs on global power dynamics, so there is no contradiction)
                  Last edited by Plezercruz; 12-06-2018, 10:35 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post

                    I'm giving Lew Rockwell his fundamental premise, which is that those who wage offensive wars are mass murderers. However, I count the first gulf war as an inherently defensive (or at least retaliatory) war and think it in no way fits that definition. Further the war was exectued through all the proper channels, with UN backing and the support of virtually all the other nations in the world. Therefore I'm disputing Rockwell's statement based on his premises, not mine.

                    Pete (does not share Rockwell's beliefs on global power dynamics, so there is no contradiction)
                    Did I miss the part where America was attacked?

                    Steve (wonders how this was anything other than an offensive war for us)
                    "Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." H.L. Mencken

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Mr. Raceboy View Post

                      Did I miss the part where America was attacked?

                      Steve (wonders how this was anything other than an offensive war for us)
                      Defense of others is a credible defense to most crimes.

                      Pete (knows that on the global scale that's nonsense, but he's not the one screaming "murder")

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post

                        Defense of others is a credible defense to most crimes.

                        Pete (knows that on the global scale that's nonsense, but he's not the one screaming "murder")
                        It had nothing to do with defending anything except for the Saudis and the petrodollar. Even then, we didn't really see it as a threat and were content to just stand by until Thatcher started talking about Hitler and appeasement.
                        "Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." H.L. Mencken

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Mr. Raceboy View Post

                          It had nothing to do with defending anything except for the Saudis and the petrodollar. Even then, we didn't really see it as a threat and were content to just stand by until Thatcher started talking about Hitler and appeasement.
                          Perhaps. But the case of coming to the defense of Kuwait was made, through all the proper channels, and it was accepted by practically every nation on Earth, and certainly by all the ones that matter geopolitically. You can argue, if you wish, that the case was false from conception, but that's rather irrelevant if the case was executed properly.

                          Again, I can think of no war that was more broadly and completely executed with the full cooperation of practically the entire world, to kick an aggressor out of an invaded country. If this particular war doesn't pass muster for you, no war possibly could.

                          Pete (supposes that would put you in line with Lew, though)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post
                            If this particular war doesn't pass muster for you, no war possibly could.

                            Pete (supposes that would put you in line with Lew, though)
                            So in your mind the first Gulf War is the textbook example of a justifiable war and if a person doesn't believe that they can't possibly support any war?

                            Steve (wonders if Pete really believes that)

                            "Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." H.L. Mencken

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              George Bush's Wars Set the Stage for 25 Years of Endless War





                              12/05/2018Ryan McMaken
                              By 1989, it had become apparent to all — everyone except the CIA, of course — that the Soviet economy, and thus the Soviet state was in very deep trouble.

                              In November 1989, the Berlin Wall came down in the face of Soviet impotence. And, with the Cold-War corpse not even cold yet, president George Bush used the newly apparent Soviet weakness as an opportunity to expand US foreign interventionism beyond the limits that had been imposed on it by a competing Soviet Union. Over the next decade, Bush and his successor Bill Clinton — who very much carried on Bush's ideals of global interventionism — would place Iraq, Somalia, and Yugoslavia in the crosshairs.

                              But first on Bush's list was Panama in December 1989. At the time, the Panamanian state was an authoritarian regime that stayed in power largely due to US support, and functioned as an American puppet state in Central America where Communists were often successful in overthrowing right-wing dictatorships. The US regime's man in Panama was Manuel Noriega. But, after he stopped taking orders from Washington, Noriega became the first in a long line of foreign politicians who were held up as the next "Hitler" by the American propaganda machine. This was done in order to justify what would become an endless policy of invading tiny foreign countries that are no threat to the US — mostly done in the name of "humanitarian" intervention.

                              Writing in April 1990, Murray Rothbard summed up the situation in Panama:
                              The U.S. invasion of Panama was the first act of military intervention in the new post-Cold War world — the first act of war since 1945 where the United States has not used Communism or "Marxism-Leninism" as the effective all-purpose alibi. Coming so soon after the end of the Cold War, the invasion was confused and chaotic — a hallmark of Bushian policy in general. Bush's list of alleged reasons for the invasion were a grab-bag of haphazard and inconsistent arguments — none of which made much sense.

                              The positive vaunting was, of course, prominent: what was called, idiotically, the "restoration of democracy" in Panama. When in blazes did Panama ever have a democracy? Certainly not under Noriega's beloved predecessor and mentor, the U.S.'s Panama Treaty partner, General Omar Torrijos. The alleged victory of the unappetizing Guillermo Endara in the abortive Panamanian election was totally unproven. The "democracy" the U.S. imposed was peculiar, to say the least: swearing in Endara and his "cabinet" in secrecy on a US army base.

                              It was difficult for our rulers to lay on the Noriega "threat" very heavily: Since Noriega, whatever his other sins, is obviously no Marxist-Leninist, and since the Cold War is over anyway it would have been tricky; even embarrassing, to try to paint Noriega and his tiny country as a grave threat to big, powerful United States. And so the Bush administration laid on the "drug" menace with a trowel, braving the common knowledge that Noriega himself was a longtime CIA creature and employee whose drug trafficking was at the very least condoned by the U.S. for many years.

                              The administration therefore kept stressing that Noriega was simply a "common criminal" who had been indicted in the US (for actions outside the US — so why not indict every other head of state as well — all of whom have undoubtedly committed crimes galore?) so that the invasion was simply a police action to apprehend an alleged fugitive. But what real police action — that is, police action over a territory over which the government has a virtual monopoly of force —involves total destruction of an entire working-class neighborhood, the murder of hundreds of Panamanian civilians as well as American soldiers, and the destruction of a half-billion dollars of civilian property?

                              The invasion also contained many bizarre elements of low comedy: There was the U.S. government's attempt to justify the invasion retroactively by displaying Noriega's plundered effects: porno in the desk drawer (well, gee, that sure justifies mass killing and destruction of property), the obligatory picture of Hitler in the closet (Aha! the Nazi threat again!), the fact that Noriega was stocking a lot of Soviet-made arms (a Commie as well as a Nazi, and "paranoid" too — the deluded fool was actually expecting an American invasion!).
                              It's almost darkly comedic how easy it has been to convince the American people to go along with nearly any justification for invading a foreign country, no matter how flimsy. It may be hard for my younger readers to comprehend, but in the late 80s, the American public was so hysterical with fear over street drugs, that it struck many Americans as perfectly reasonable to invade a foreign country, burn down a neighborhood, and send the US Army to lay siege to Panama's presidential headquarters to catch a single drug kingpin.

                              After Panama, President Bush moved on to Iraq.

                              In 1991, Saddam Hussein became the next Hitler, with the media hinting that if left unchecked, Hussein would invade the entire Middle East. "He gassed his own people!" was the endless refrain. The other justification was that Saddam's government had invaded another country. Rothbard, of course, noted the irony of this "justification":
                              But, "he invaded a small country." Yes, indeed he did. But, are we ungracious for bringing up the undoubted fact that none other than George Bush, not long ago, invaded a very small country: Panama? And to the unanimous huzzahs of the same U.S. media and politicians now denouncing Saddam?
                              The Iraq War was an even greater political success than the Panama war. But more importantly, George Bush provided an immeasurably wonderful service to the national security state by making war popular again, after more than a decade of the so-called "Vietnam Syndrome." As Bush so enthusiastically declared after the end of the Gulf War, "The ghosts of Vietnam have been laid to rest beneath the sands of the Arabian desert."

                              Americans, however, would have done well to keep up with a healthy dose of post-Vietnam cynicism. After all, the 1991 Gulf War — a war said to be humanitarian in nature — accomplished little more than to empower Saudi Arabia, a brutal Islamist dictatorship ruled by friends of the Bush family, and which currently wages a blood-soaked war in Yemen against women and children.

                              But, thanks to Bush's efforts, war in America was made popular again, and the stage was set for years of follow-up wars waged by Bush successors. The Clinton Years

                              By the mid-1990s, Slobodan Milošević was the new Hitler, stepping in to replace Noriega and Hussein as the world's greatest threats to peace.

                              The downside of these new Hitlers, of course, was that any reasonable person could see that none of them were any threat whatsoever to the United States.

                              Even the call for "humanitarian" action rung a little untrue for more astute observers. After all, it struck many people as curious as to why Serbia required bombing for its human rights violations while the genocide in Rwanda — which was occurring right around the same time — was steadfastly ignored by Washington. If human rights were such a major concern for the US state in the 90s, why was there no invasion of North Korea in response to the horrors of the death camps there?

                              New life was breathed into the military-interventionist camp after 2001 by Osama bin Laden. But "humanitarian" missions and the search for the next Hitler continue to this day.

                              In 2011, the usual tactics were employed to justify the invasion of Libya — which only made the country a breeding ground for ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

                              And today, of course, we hear the same things about Bashar Assad in Syria. Like Noriega, Hussein, Milošević, and Qaddafi before him, Assad is obviously no threat to the US or its residents. Indeed, Assad is fighting people who potentially are a threat to US residents. But, since the US military establishment wants Assad gone, some excuse must be manufactured for an invasion.

                              Ultimately, Rothbard concluded that these methods can be employed against any regime on earth, and wrote sarcastically in 1994: "'we cannot stand idly by' while anyone anywhere starves, hits someone over the head, is undemocratic, or commits a Hate Crime":
                              We must face the fact that there is not a single country in the world that measures up to the lofty moral and social standards that are the hallmark of the U.S.A.: even Canada is delinquent and deserves a whiff of grape. There is not a single country in the world which, like the U.S., reeks of democracy and "human rights," and is free of crime and murder and hate thoughts and undemocratic deeds. Very few other countries are as Politically Correct as the U.S., or have the wit to impose a massively statist program in the name of "freedom," "free trade," "multiculturalism," and "expanding democracy."

                              And so, since no other countries shape up to U.S. standards in a world of Sole Superpower they must be severely chastised by the U.S. I make a Modest Proposal for the only possible consistent and coherent foreign policy: the U.S. must, very soon, Invade the Entire World! Sanctions are peanuts; we must invade every country in the world, perhaps softening them up beforehand with a wonderful high-tech missile bombing show courtesy of CNN.
                              George Bush's wars would prove to be only an introduction to what was to come during the next 25 years of American foreign policy: target a foreign regime that poses no threat to the US, and manufacture a nice-sounding reason for doing so. Today, the methods are the same, and only the names have changed.
                              https://mises.org/wire/george-bushs-...rs-endless-war
                              Originally posted by Mr. Raceboy
                              I'm a lot more worried about the commies running DC than I am about commies half way around the world.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                That's a lot better, Robin.

                                Pete (can generally agree with that narrative)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X