|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 11, 2013 14:11:58 GMT
I was inspired by a Youtube video that I posted on the Sit Down thread that is worth addressing here. First the video and then excerpts from the lyrics as appropriate for discussion.
Since WW II well over 6 million innocent people have died in wars that the US has been involved and this doesn't include soldiers that died in these conflicts. That is a staggering number.
For the mothers, fathers, wives, children, and significant relationships of the soldier and the soldiers themselves the toll is far worse.
War has one more friend and that is the power elite including the politicans and wealthy that benefit from war while the common man and woman pays the price of war in blood and tears. Since 2001 the United States has waged a "War on Terror" but there is no greater act of terrorism than war. We cannot end terrorism by committing the greatest act of terrorism known to mankind.
Yes, there is a better way........ it's called Peace.
To cite a saying from the anti-war movement of the late 1960's and early 1970's:
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 28, 2013 12:59:26 GMT
news.yahoo.com/congress-veto-obamas-war-070000199.htmlWe're seeing the same disregard for International Law, the US Constitution, and the Treaties that the United States is a party to under President Obama that we saw under former President Bush. The UN Charter expressly prohibits any nation from using force or the threat of force against another nation unless it is authorized by the UN Security Council. We're a treaty member of the United Nations and that treaty obligation even supersedes the statutory laws of Congress under the US Constitution.
Without UNSC authorization the President will be committing a gross violation of the law and this is an impeachable offense. Under international law such an attack would be a War Crime and a Crime Against Humanity.
Why are any of us sitting back and allowing this to happen again!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 29, 2013 12:45:45 GMT
Just like former President Bush "believed" that Iraq had WMD's President Obama "believes" that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. This isn't based upon actual evidence but instead it's based upon "intelligence reports" that we already know are often flawed. President Obama doesn't "believe" that the rebels have these chemical weapons although it would be in the best "political" interests of the rebels to use chemical weapons on civilians and blame it on government forces. It would be against the Syrian government's best political interests to use chemical weapons.
Of course we can also draw other analogies to the former Bush Administration and the Obama Administration. When the WMD's weren't found in Iraq all of a sudden the reasons for the invasion changed to what a bad man Saddam was. While Saddam was eventually captured and convicted of being complicit in the murder of about 146 people (and was executed for that) it was also alleged that his administration had used chemical weapons years earlier on the Kurds where about 6,000 people might have died. Of course the US invasion of Iraq lead to chaos where it's estimated that between about 150,000 and more than one million innocent Iraqis ultimately died because of the invasion.
Another analogy is the fact that former President Bush claimed that Iraq WMD's represented a threat against the United States when Iraq didn't have any means of attacking the United States and no intention of ever doing so. Today President Obama is claiming that chemical weapons in Syria represent a threat against the United States when Syria has no means of attacking the United States and no intention of ever doing so. If anything if the rebel forces take over these chemical weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists that are supporting the rebels and that could represent a threat to the United States.
This story doesn't relate any actual numbers of how many possible Syrians died from these possible "chemical" weapons attacks but we do know one simple fact. If the US launches military attacks on Syria a lot more innocent civilians will die than the possible number of victims of any chemical attacks.
I can hardly support the proposition that just because some innocent civilians died in a civil war that the US should attack that nation to inflict even more innocent deaths. It cannot be argued that it is "moral" for the US to inflict more deaths on innocent civilians but that is exactly what happens every time the US military has become involved in a conflict. About 2 million innocent civilians died in Vietnam. Up to perhaps a million innocent civilians died in Iraq. How many innocent civilians have already died in Afghanistan?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 30, 2013 12:46:11 GMT
President Obama reflects US hypocrisy in his recent statement that I previously quoted but didn't address specifically.
Yes, those that violate the "Laws and Customs of War" need to be held accountable and this isn't limited to just using chemical weapons. Those responsible need to be subjected to prosecution by the International Court of Justice in the Hague that addresses cases of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.
But apparently "American Presidents" are supposed to be exempted from being held accountable for their actions. During his administration former President Bush violated the "Laws and Customs of War" in both Afghanistan and Iraq were those captured on the battle field were not afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions that establish International Law related to war but President Obama has not called for Bush to be held accountable for his actions. Since taking office President Obama has ordered international assassinations (extra-judicial executions) based upon the "War on Terrorism" but international assassinations are prohibited by International Law.
So how can President Obama state that those responsible for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity be held accountable for their offenses while refusing to address violations of the Laws and Customs of War by prior US administrations and his own administration?
Every member of every government in the world needs to be held accountable for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity and that includes past and current members of the US government.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 19, 2013 14:01:32 GMT
 There is no greater act of tyranny or act of terrorism than WAR and yet WAR has overwhelmingly been the policy of the US government since the founding of the United States. When are we going to say, "Enough is enough" and change the US policies to one of peace and not war?
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Sept 19, 2013 19:00:53 GMT
Ask your President. He's the one 'drawing red lines' and threatening Assad. He sure changed his tune from when he was the undisputed "Present" campion in the Senate right?
You guys sure know how to pick them.
You all put some one in the White house strictly on hi skin color and his promises. That's the same logic as my neighbor who keeps taking his Vet to a local tune-up shop b/s the shop's owners wife like to flirt with the customers while the completely incompetent owner is in the back totally effing up the car.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 20, 2013 9:25:09 GMT
I've sent letters and signed petitions in opposition to war to the last eight of my presidents none of which I've voted for.
I do find it interesting that someone that, based upon their statements, apparently isn't an American seems to have so much misinformation about why President Obama elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012. The fact is that Americans decided President Obama was the lesser of two evils when given a choice between the Republican and Democratic candidates and so he was elected and he is the President of the United States. Of note I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 because he opposed US military interventionism.
President Obama is the President of the United States and he OUR President if we're an American citizen whether we voted for him or not.
I've opposed not only overt US military interventionism but also the paramilitary wars conducted by the CIA since I was old enough to vote under every single one of our Presidents during that time period. I've opposed it because I was a Vietnam Veteran and I learned in Vietnam that we were wrong to be there. We had no right to be in Vietnam and to murder the citizens of that nation nor have we had a right to engage in the non-stop wars since then.
I have been consistent with every single one of our Presidents in opposing war.
Few can make that statement and I applaud anyone that can.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 20, 2013 20:08:44 GMT
@ all of the above.
War, what is it good for? Cash for arms dealers (and oil companies).
Before WWII, the U.S. arms trade was almost a dead duck, since that war, it's massively powerful as America has always created a new enemy that requires massive arms spending in order to keep in check.
The horrible communists, who were intent on destroying America, were replaced by the horrible Muslims, who are intent on destroying America and now that "threat" is being played out, they're being replaced by the horrible Chinese, who are also intent on destroying America.
Of course, China has little influence outside the region except for their Iranian oil interests that America is trying to grab and the excuse, China has a nasty, imperialistic aircraft carrier.
Of course, America has none.
|
|
