Obama is a war criminal

[tjakey]

America loves war. We are pretty much constantly at war. War spending makes up a large part of our budget. No one is talking about actually cutting military spending to something in the same time zone as rational, no Democrats and certainly no Republicans. Military spending is America's job program, and we all know it. In addition, Republicans are the American Christian Party, particularly their T-party branch, and American Christians love war. Indeed, they can hardly wait for god to come along and kill off a billion or so in a nice big battle that will do away with all of us un-believers in the great and powerful Jesus.

There is no chance that an anti-war candidate will ever make it onto a national ballot with a real chance of winning. Americans would not stand for it. So, pretty much every and any POTUS will be a war criminal before his (or her) first year is the history books. Waging war is what we elect them to do. There may never be peace on earth, but there will certainly never be peace on earth as long as America rules.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm calling the following the Watkins Effect.

Back in the late 80s, President Reagan appointed a commission to look into the nation's AIDS crisis (finally) and to craft a response/policy to follow into the future to combat the epidemic.

A long time navy admiral, Watkins, wound up in charge of the commission. The commission was very controversial, just having a gay member or gay friendly members put the conservative and religious fundies into orbit. Gay activists feared (rightly in my view) draconian (if not worse) and ineffective measures to combat the disease would result, and in that political climate, result in a terrible civil rights debacle for the entire community and a needless continuation and worsening of an ongoing catastrophic medical crisis.

To his credit, Watkins, and the committee kept open minds about the AIDS problem, got in the trenches, had good experts testify, and they produced sensible policies that were pretty much ignored by the Reagan administration (but gained traction nevertheless in Congress and other places).

In my view, the results of the commission were not expected by the administration since they viewed the problem through conservative political prisms. Reagan didn't feel the need to directly lead Watkins to any preferred conclusion, the selection process that lit on Watkins was viewed as a sufficient guarantee to get the desired outcome, one that conformed to conservative political and Moral Majority dogma.


This 'effect' if you will, of sending forth presumed allies, unknowingly flawed with open minds and reasonable attitudes that result in findings contrary to expectations, I call the Watkins Effect.


I think some of Obama's perceived fuck ups, like failing to close Gitmo in a timely fashion might be indicative of something akin to the Watkins Effect. Now that the decision is in his lap, and with access to FAR more information than he had on the campaign trail, the correct course of action doesn't jibe with the preconceived notions very well.

And note, while the Watkins Effect occurred under a conservative president, that is irrelevant. Ideologues of any stripe can get their comeuppance from those damn pesky inconvenient facts.

And then, in view of this, criticism of Obama on the failure to timely close Gitmo from HIS BASE is really crass. Any of the critics, if placed in Obama's position, are going to find reality leading them to the same place it led Obama on the timing of that decision.

I appreciate your reasoning and get what you're saying about the Watkins Effect -- but aren't you assuming that Obama has sound reasons for keeping it open?

[Anomalocaris]

America loves war. We are pretty much constantly at war. War spending makes up a large part of our budget. No one is talking about actually cutting military spending to something in the same time zone as rational, no Democrats and certainly no Republicans. Military spending is America's job program, and we all know it. In addition, Republicans are the American Christian Party, particularly their T-party branch, and American Christians love war. Indeed, they can hardly wait for god to come along and kill off a billion or so in a nice big battle that will do away with all of us un-believers in the great and powerful Jesus.

There is no chance that an anti-war candidate will ever make it onto a national ballot with a real chance of winning. Americans would not stand for it. So, pretty much every and any POTUS will be a war criminal before his (or her) first year is the history books. Waging war is what we elect them to do. There may never be peace on earth, but there will certainly never be peace on earth as long as America rules.

It's a regrettable fact that no model total war has ever occurred on American soil to teach muricans what it is like to really be on the receiving end of the eagerly disavowed but lustily felt desire to revel in the ability to deal out impersonal killing and destruction.

[Mudhammam]

When you lock Bush and Cheney up then you can go after Obama.

Which is exactly why Obama refused to prosecute any war criminals.

[tjakey]

America loves war. We are pretty much constantly at war. War spending makes up a large part of our budget. No one is talking about actually cutting military spending to something in the same time zone as rational, no Democrats and certainly no Republicans. Military spending is America's job program, and we all know it. In addition, Republicans are the American Christian Party, particularly their T-party branch, and American Christians love war. Indeed, they can hardly wait for god to come along and kill off a billion or so in a nice big battle that will do away with all of us un-believers in the great and powerful Jesus.

There is no chance that an anti-war candidate will ever make it onto a national ballot with a real chance of winning. Americans would not stand for it. So, pretty much every and any POTUS will be a war criminal before his (or her) first year is the history books. Waging war is what we elect them to do. There may never be peace on earth, but there will certainly never be peace on earth as long as America rules.

It's a regrettable fact that no model total war has ever occurred on American soil to teach muricans what it is like to really be on the receiving end of the eagerly disavowed but lustily felt desire to revel in the ability to deal out impersonal killing and destruction.

America never had to survive a modern total war. We folded after the single attack of 9/11, abandoning any pretence of being a just or democratic society. Military / Corporate interests overwhelmed the government and we have been "at war" ever since; with military and secuity special interests absorbing the majority of the budget. The NSA expanded its powers to spy on every American at any time for any reason, and the courts were either powerless or uninterested in opposing them.

So, I guess it is wrong to think of Bush, Obama, or anyone else as a war criminal. War is not a criminal act in the US...it is our only reason for being.

We live in a "post-fallen" America, the failure of American democracy being a thing at least 10 years behind us. We now have a throughly militarized police regularly putting down street protests. Civil liberties have been rolled back for many citizens, and more are in the works. Propaganda rules as both "news" and "entertainment". All of us are continuously threatened by the police on one hand and our fellow, armed, citizens on the other. The flaws in the Constitution have been expertly exploited by those in power, and "democracy" and "liberty" are now words without meaning - but most Americans haven't a clue.

We live with the Chinese curse, "May you live to see interesting times."

[Ryantology]

We live in a "post-fallen" America, the failure of American democracy being a thing at least 10 years behind us. We now have a throughly militarized police regularly putting down street protests. Civil liberties have been rolled back for many citizens, and more are in the works. Propaganda rules as both "news" and "entertainment". All of us are continuously threatened by the police on one hand and our fellow, armed, citizens on the other. The flaws in the Constitution have been expertly exploited by those in power, and "democracy" and "liberty" are now words without meaning - but most Americans haven't a clue.

We live with the Chinese curse, "May you live to see interesting times."

I agree with this assessment, but I am not quite so bleak about where it will go. I think the post-9/11 state of things is the last gasp of the Baby Boomers, a generation which has, on the whole, failed this country and its people spectacularly and is trying to destroy any semblance of democracy before Father Time snuffs them all out.

I see the Millennial generation being far more aware, both of themselves and of the consequences of bad behavior. That's not to say they're perfect, because they are by no means, but they are vastly more progressive than any generation before, and a generation of progressives is the only hope we have of not degenerating entirely into a theocorporate neo-fascist hellhole.

[vorlon13]

[quote='vorlon13' pid='833086' dateline='1420159761']
I'm calling the following the Watkins Effect.

Back in the late 80s, President Reagan appointed a commission to look into the nation's AIDS crisis (finally) and to craft a response/policy to follow into the future to combat the epidemic.

A long time navy admiral, Watkins, wound up in charge of the commission. The commission was very controversial, just having a gay member or gay friendly members put the conservative and religious fundies into orbit. Gay activists feared (rightly in my view) draconian (if not worse) and ineffective measures to combat t

I appreciate your reasoning and get what you're saying about the Watkins Effect -- but aren't you assuming that Obama has sound reasons for keeping it open?

He's busy golfing and doesn't have time to sign the order ??

Must have some decent rationale for failing to close, unless you're onto something there, and his reason(s) is specious bull crap.

Or he likes watching videos of big strapping hairy men getting waterboarded . . .


hmmmm, maybe not O, but it might work on me.

[CapnAwesome]

I constantly hear on here about how Bush is a war criminal. I actually agree, Bush clearly committed war crimes again and again. However what I have never heard or seen a thread on is how Obama is also a war criminal.

I've posted this many times.

Let me do it one more time just to be clear.

Obama has been a phenomena disappointment. He's not a liberal. He's not a progressive. He's not my man.

I support him only because he's better than the GOP.

Yeah, but are you willing to say that he's a war criminal? Saying that he isn't liberal enough is hardly the same.

[DeistPaladin]

Yeah, but are you willing to say that he's a war criminal?

Sure. Your point?

Saying that he isn't liberal enough is hardly the same.

If your point was "your man in Washington does it too", then it's relevant to point out he's not my man.

Since I'm answering your questions, why don't you answer some of mine. What did you think of my observation of your style that I made on another thread?

I'll repeat it for you:
1. You throw down the gauntlet, challenging me.
2. I pick it up and offer you logical arguments.
3. You call me names.
4. I ask if you have any logical arguments to offer or defense of your positions.
5. You run away.
6. Repeat step 1 in another thread.

I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you.

[CapnAwesome]

Yeah, but are you willing to say that he's a war criminal?

Sure. Your point?

Saying that he isn't liberal enough is hardly the same.

If your point was "your man in Washington does it too", then it's relevant to point out he's not my man.

Since I'm answering your questions, why don't you answer some of mine. What did you think of my observation of your style that I made on another thread?

I'll repeat it for you:
1. You throw down the gauntlet, challenging me.
2. I pick it up and offer you logical arguments.
3. You call me names.
4. I ask if you have any logical arguments to offer or defense of your positions.
5. You run away.
6. Repeat step 1 in another thread.

I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you.

My point about him being a war criminal is that maybe you guys shouldn't be supporting a war criminal. You literally said there was no reason for people to hate Obama to the extent that they do and now you are admitting that he is a war criminal? I think that's a legitimate reason, don't you? Maybe there is a better way then choosing the lesser of two war criminals.

I don't find any of that to be true. You are offering mostly propaghanda and calling it logical. I don't know what you want me to reply to even? A video showing conservatives saying stupid things? Yeah, that happens. I don't really feel like digging up a video or making a video of liberals saying stupid shit all year. A lot of what you ask for is way too specific or just requires too much work. I remember once you asked me to dig up some news video about the liberal media bashing Bush on hurricane Katrina. What??? I don't have that kind of time on my hands. I'm not going to dig through old news footage, probably have to make a video myself since Jon Stewart isn't making one for me just to reply to some post on the internet that is super obvious. Also when I say anything you cry fallacy, don't even reply to my points and rinse and repeat. It's not really something that I feel like engaging in. Can you understand why? Also when do I call you names? I call you liberal and left wing. I don't say that with any sort of malice. You are liberal and left wing. It does bias your viewpoint. That's not name calling. Don't be so fucking sensitive. If I wanted to call you names I'd just call you a kale-eating, pinko. That's one of my go to insults. So if you don't see something like that, you can be assured my intent is not to be insulting. Also I have to go to multiple threads because getting you to answer direct questions is like pulling teeth. I think the conservatives on here don't like answering your challenges because they don't like having the goal posts changed on them.