*DAMN R6 Forum

     Last night, a set of parallels between George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler that hasn't been beaten to death occurred to me: military ones!

     Just think, both of them had the world's most powerful, technologically advanced armed forces, and both of them thought they were military geniuses who knew better than their highly skilled generals, and so both of them lost wars they should have easily won. Both of them exhibited incredible hubris by ignoring the opinions of their commanders, the advice of their intelligence networks, and the lessons of history, resulting in losses where none should have occurred.

     I thought this post would generate some lively discussion, or at least some jokes at Dubya's expense. You've let me down. Especially you, BFG. I'm gonna go cry myself to sleep now, so you should feel really bad.

The comparison between Bush and Hitler was posted on here before I remember reading it.

Well, if I weren't banned from making political comments here, I would discuss the stupidity of this post with you  ;)

     Banned, huh? I must have missed that. In truth, I was looking forward to hearing your response.

lol it wasn't a ban GS, you just kinda agreeded not to get into extreamly heated debates regarding political issues if you were going to be a Mod on the forums.. ;)  go on tell us what you think of that comparison i'd like to know!

I'd also like to hear your read on Bush's mention of Iran and Syria in his address on Wednesday.  Setting us up for Tonkin Gulf round two?  Or just trying to be intimidating?

Soon..very soon..

(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p263/macuber/bush_defeated_resigns.jpg)

You know what i'd love to see? Bush, Cheney and Blair in the Hague on charges of War Crimes.

Don't you think it would be better if actual war criminals went first before we work our way down to the criminally incompetant and stupid? There's plenty of them out there.....

Yep good point - Saddam should have gone for a starter. Then we have Robert Mugabe who should be there, plus Arial Sharon and rather a lot of Israli Military and government official.

Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions include:

Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
Torture or inhumane treatment
Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer

Since the beginning of the 'War on Terror' and the creation of 'Camp X-Ray' and the flights of 'extreame rendition' all of the above have been broken in one shape or form however, so i don't think its to much to want to bring those responsible to justice.

Poor BFG, haven't you learned from history?

"Only the winners decide what were war crimes"  ;)

Oh way to look for the easy way out. Come off it.

At no point is terrorism accepted by any of us. To endlessly shout about bringing terrorist acts is as stupid as to shout that rape is a bad thing - we all know that we all agree on it. And actually there is an endless wave of voices calling that those who carry out terrorist acts be brought to justice. But this shouting can be a little selective, and just because the act is carried out by a 'sovereignty' dosn't make it any less a terrible act.

Its an easy word to use - a terrible act that causes death to innocents etc carried out by an 'illigitamate' force.  So whats the equivelant when nations do the same in the name of their 'sovereignty'?


MADE? you have a CHOICE. Your country was not forced to kidnapp people drug them and fly them to secret locations around the world where they could not be shielded by international laws and could receive that 'special interrogation'. Our countries were not forced to take it upon ourselves to Invade Iraq and yet fail the Iraqi people so badly.

A Terrorist is that by name - he/she has nobody to answer to and most often represents a tiny minority, an extreamist view who must resort to terrorist acts to get what they want.
Is that worse than when a nation carrys out the same acts, in the name of but without support of the majority?

Someone else started it miss... its the easiest way to pass the blame. Pass it on and you'll probably find it gets passed back.

I fail to see how the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's is protecting your sovereignty - and what about the other countries sovereignty that we invade all the time - both US and British among many others? Given your statment that suggests you regard your country to have implicit superiority and thus to rules, one for you and one for everyone else?

At the end of it I see terrorism in a broader view - not just those masked men in Palestine who cause terror in Israel -  but also those figures in western power that pull the strings that cause such terror to so many others accross the world. 


If your going to shout about bringing terrorists to justice Ghostsniper you must accept that you have to bring them ALL to justice - not just the convenient ones that don't damnage your idealized little world.

I don't know how you can dare to sound so indignant.

BFG..you have to remember..You can lead a Republican to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

Im sorry.... i'd had a few drinks and was feeling particually angry with it all! :)

We all want the cunts who attacked us brought to justice.  That's besides the point.  What evils our leaders commit deserve justice as well. 

I don't think we're winning this one, at least not in the sense where we can declare victory and have anyone believe us, so I'm doubtful we're writting the history books as victors.  As paricipants, sure.  It will not be a good book.

My quote is more valid than ever.

What GS might have said if he had half a brain would have been something along the lines of "the terrorists are enemy combattants, not prisoners of war and thus do not deserve protection under the generva convention, which only applies to conflicts between states"...and he would have been correct to some extent. That doesn't mean that it's right for detainees to be in a legal black hole, not by a long shot.
And just to make a point about the international war crimes tribunal, it can only be petioned if the states involved are signatories to the treaty (which the United Kingdom is, but the United States is not) and their judiciaries are either unable or unwilling to deal with it themselves.
But the real point i was making was that yes our leaders have done some pretty outlandish things, mostly out of incompetence and poor judgement, but that doesn't mean that they should be treated like herman goering, milosevic or some of these characters from the Congo and DRC who will be in trial in the hague very soon...
I think that statements like "bush is a war criminal" etc. actually hurt the human rights cause because it draws the focus away from the real abusers who should be our primary focus. Take amnesty international: if they spent as much time and energy on the "real" offenders (burma, north korea, drc warlords etc.) as they did on politically expedient causes (such as demonizing the US and Israel, which are both open and democratic societies) they would be doing a great service to the cause of human rights....as things stand they are just another tool for "anti-imperialists" and israel-bashers. Human rights watch, in my opinion, is a lot better at avoiding that trap.