U.S. Politics / bounced checks and negative balances

[A True Kaniggit]

30 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The President is the head of the military, of course generals fall in line. They may argue along the way, but in the end the Commander in Chief rules the day.

“I was only following orders” Isn’t a legitimate defense. 
 

Isn’t that was Nuremburg was all about?

[Fragile Bird]

4 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

“I was only following orders” Isn’t a legitimate defense. 
 

Isn’t that was Nuremburg was all about?

I don’t think Nuremberg was about people claiming a country had WMDs when it didn’t. 
 

Besides that, the US doesn’t believe any body in the world can sit judgement on anything it does. No Nurembergs for you guys!

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Isn’t that was Nuremburg was all about?

I don't think composing military propaganda whitewashing My Lai is comparable to the defendants at Nuremberg.  As for the UN speech and the Iraq War, well, the ironic thing there is if he hadn't made that speech he'd be known as the Dubya official comparatively most reticent and almost the only one insisting on coalition building/international cooperation.  I suppose he could have resigned but that wasn't gonna stop em.

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

if he hadn't made that speech he'd be known as the Dubya official comparatively most reticent and almost the only one insisting on coalition building/international cooperation.  I suppose he could have resigned but that wasn't gonna stop em.

Colin Powell's legacy would be dramatically different and far more positive if he had done that.  Yes, it would have made no difference on the decision to go to war, but that wasn't his call. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

Colin Powell's legacy would be dramatically different and far more positive if he had done that. 

Certainly true, but I'm not surprised Powell's military ethos motivated him to stick it out and try to change things from the inside.  Look at all the generals that thought they could serve Trump.  Hell, in Woodward's books on the Dubya administration, Powell and Larry Wilkerson's efforts to combat Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz are portrayed as heroic.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Also Powell's defense, unlike so many of the other Bush lackeys he took ownership of his mistake and it haunted him for the remainder of his life. So many of the high ranking officials in Dubya's Administration still maintain they did nothing wrong.  

[A True Kaniggit]

41 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't think composing military propaganda whitewashing My Lai is comparable to the defendants at Nuremberg.  1) As for the UN speech and the Iraq War, well, the ironic thing there is if he hadn't made that speech he'd be known as the Dubya official comparatively most reticent and almost the only one insisting on coalition building/international cooperation.  I suppose he could have resigned but 2) that wasn't gonna stop em.

1) That is t I was thinking of.

2) Which is why I brought up Nuremburg. Powell could've said no, resigned and lived out the rest of his life. People who were hanged at Nuremburg could've said no...... and instead of being hanged could've been shot a few years earlier by the nazis for not following orders.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

1) That is t I was thinking of.

I still think comparing Powell's UN speech to the Nazis tried at Nuremberg isn't really appropriate.

[A True Kaniggit]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I still think comparing Powell's UN speech to the Nazis tried at Nuremberg isn't really appropriate.

Probably not, I am using an extreme example.

I suppose it would depend on how much he was responsible for the war in Iraq actually happening, and how many of the resulting deaths are on him.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, A True Kaniggit said:

I suppose it would depend on how much he was responsible for the war in Iraq actually happening.

Not much at all.  Remember, by the time Powell made the UN speech Dubya had already decided to invade.

[A True Kaniggit]

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not much at all.  Remember, by the time Powell made the UN speech Dubya had already decided to invade.

I’ll have to take your word on this.

The man was Secretary of State. But I don’t know whether he argued for or against the invasion before that final decision.

Though it does appear that after the final decision was made he did go all in.  

[sologdin]

superior orders is an old defense, and has legitimate uses. see e.g. art. 33 of the rome statute.  powell likely doesn't get shoehorned into it.  he'd be command responaibility, if charged in his military capacity.  or more probably crime of aggression, were it applicable to the US, in his civilian capacity--though his role in the iraq war was more disseminator of untruths, similar to streicher, if we need NSDAP analogues.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

But I don’t know whether he argued for or against the invasion before that final decision.

There's no getting around the fact Powell could have - and should have - resigned rather than agree to publicly back it.  And it's especially galling he allowed the administration to use his credibility to lie to the UN and the world in order to sell it.  But as far as responsibility for the actual decision making?  Privately he was the primary high-ranking official arguing against military action and thought it was stupid.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also Powell's defense, unlike so many of the other Bush lackeys he took ownership of his mistake and it haunted him for the remainder of his life. So many of the high ranking officials in Dubya's Administration still maintain they did nothing wrong.  

Well, at least he felt bad about all the death rained down on innocent people.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

34 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Well, at least he felt bad about all the death rained down on innocent people.

I didn't say it absolved him of blame, just that it should be noted that he at least recognized his serious mistake which is more than what most of the people in charge at that time have done, and it's not like he could have prevented it from happening.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

JFC, Manchin and Jayapal met for the first time last night. What the hell is going on? Where is leadership? These people should be ashamed of themselves. This is pathetic. 

[Spockydog]

 

11 hours ago, DMC said:

I still think comparing Powell's UN speech to the Nazis tried at Nuremberg isn't really appropriate.

The ghosts of 2.3 million dead Iraqis would like a word. 

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I didn't say it absolved him of blame, just that it should be noted that he at least recognized his serious mistake which is more than what most of the people in charge at that time have done, and it's not like he could have prevented it from happening.

That has literal zero bearing. He did nothing to speak out, to try and stop the 20 years of war around the world, to rectify his mistakes. He just stoically held in, like a real man, all his regrets about the horrid atrocities committed due to his work alongside other members of the Bush administration.

So he couldn't prevent it, but he could have resigned (I would if I were part of something so ghastly). But he didn't resign, and while feeling bad, he did minimal work to go out to explain to the public what really happened. He did little to organize people, to educate them, etc. He silently protested the military industrial complex.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

36 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

That has literal zero bearing. He did nothing to speak out, to try and stop the 20 years of war around the world, to rectify his mistakes. He just stoically held in, like a real man, all his regrets about the horrid atrocities committed due to his work alongside other members of the Bush administration.

I'm not sure that's an entirely accurate representation. I don't believe he ever apologized for the Iraq war, but he did speak out against its continuation. And it's worth noting he was out of office pretty early on in the affair.

Quote

So he couldn't prevent it, but he could have resigned (I would if I were part of something so ghastly). But he didn't resign, and while feeling bad, he did minimal work to go out to explain to the public what really happened. He did little to organize people, to educate them, etc. He silently protested the military industrial complex.

My best guess is he thought along the same line as the generals under Trump, that resigning would accomplish nothing and that they'd be replaced by someone more willing to go along with said ghastly affairs.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not sure that's an entirely accurate representation. I don't believe he ever apologized for the Iraq war, but he did speak out against its continuation. And it's worth noting he was out of office pretty early on in the affair.

My best guess is he thought along the same line as the generals under Trump, that resigning would accomplish nothing and that they'd be replaced by someone more willing to go along with said ghastly affairs.

So instead of actually trying to stop the anything bad from happening, or cueing the public in that the doubts about WMDs were well founded, he just hung around to witness the atrocities because he's a "good guy" and he'd be a better witness than a John Bolton type.  Thank the gods he was there for that.