This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is Powell a war criminal?
If the answer is "Yes" then answer this next question:
"What about our current president?"
Blogs on the internet accuse the president, of similar act as Powell:
"Obama remains a continuation of Bush. As he announced that “a decade of war is now ending,” his drone war killed three more “suspected militants” in Yemen—another statement that the U.S. has the right to target anyone, anywhere suspected of wanting to attack U.S. nationals or the forces of governments that work with the U.S. are fair targets for annihilation at the president’s discretion."
or......
Obama continues to threaten Iran. He continues to encourage the false perception encouraged by the media that Iran has a nuclear weapons program threatening Israel and the world. Following the joint U.S.-NATO operation to topple Qadafy in Libya (producing an even worse regime), he mulls over intervening in Syria, and already orders his air force to deliver French troops to the battlefields of yet another war-of-choice, this time in Mali."
President Obama was elected by popular support and with the endorsement of Gen. Powell.
****A WORD OF ADVISE: THIS IS A CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC AND I WILL ASK THAT PEOPLE BE RESPECTFUL OF DIFFERING OPINIONS.
***** NO VERBAL FIST FIGHTS, PLEASE.
HAVE YOUR SAY AND LET OTHERS HAVE THEIRS. OKAY?
My thanks to TED for posting this debate.
Don Wesley 50+
You a said bit earlier, that “A video of Saddam and Donald Rumsfeld meeting is here to refresh your recollection:”
Have you heard of propaganda. And what diplomats do!
I remember Prime Minister Chamberlain, meeting Hitler and delaying the War and then being called a traitor at home.
He was delaying the War because Marshall Dowding of his Air Force told him England needed more time to build more spitfire fighters.
Karsten Grunert
It is extraordinary to see people who have turned into such sheep that they defend the wolves.
Tragic.
Don Wesley 50+
You really do have “real” problems reading.
It is short reply to read.
I did not say it wasn't real.
I repeat - I did not say it wasn't real.
Send me a private email for comments like these.
Lets be friendly not enemies.
And Chamberlain did meet Hitler!
You are trigger happy and you accuse me of being delusional?
You accuse and never allege! That's all you seem to do.
The Biblical lexicon calls this the work of the Devil – The accuser!
Are you in the military and suffering from PTSD.?
I say wait a minute and apologize.
This getting awful!
You sound desperate!
With all my compassion and respect
Don
Don Wesley 50+
It may help either side of this debate.
I suggest the following reasoned theory.
Lewis F. Richardson’s mathematical theory of war
ANATOL RAPOPORT
University of Michigan
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/67679/10.1177_002200275700100301.pdf;jsessionid=3D085BDF69A6468105F21C28F6ABD28E?sequence=2
Don Wesley 50+
I will provide more argument later for all to see.
But, I will comment here on “your” one remark which is: "Let me try this. I care too."
Karsten, Love is not an emotion, but a state of awareness and caring;
Love of this type is often called compassion-feeling.
Your weakness, [As I see it] is your very limited scope of awareness and what you believe it tells you.
Think about what I am saying; I ask you with much kindness.
We get some partial-awareness from ourselves, by using out own limited knowledge.
But, to be prudent before making decisions we must consider all the partial awareness available; from all the experts involved. Truly brilliant minds are are involved doing this. Minds that can also read others emotions in fraction of a microsecond. We can see liars and people with hidden agendas.
We are not playing a simple game of chess here. The stakes are the price of War.
And I am working very hard to communicate to all, why my disagreement-with-you is so very-fierce.
Furthermore, my writing, might be difficult for a few to understand today; but with time, understanding will spread. It is better to be short and hard to understand than not understood at all.
Karsten Grunert
You cloud your life experience with vague emotions. Look at the life you are living. Look at the facts before you.
You do not need "experts", you do not need "brilliant minds". You can use your own intellect to decide.
You are incomprehensible.
Put your opinions into a single declarative sentence without using emotional language or some lame metaphor and say something that someone can understand. You are not being intellectual, you are being obtuse.
Don Wesley 50+
I didn't put out a hook to catch you making a mistake.
You just revealed yourself. And I can now say Check-mate.
You have revealed some truths about yourself.
That not bad at all, it fact I say it is good.
Because, Better to “Know thyself” and thereafter you will be true to all men.
The most revealing remark you made is -
“You do not need "experts", you do not need "brilliant minds". You can use your own intellect to decide.”
[That is true, but not wise. Ask anyone if he knows all; especially a physicist; he will pause for a few seconds and say No.
The second revealing remark you made is -
“You cloud your life experience with vague emotions. Look at the life you are living. Look at the facts before you.”
[This statement is not true at all !] My life is not cloudy at all. And I work hard and listen to other wise minds to understand the whole situation.
To know all the facts, you need also need high EQ which is emotional intelligence
Do a little research about EQ. Low EQ predicts a very poor leader.
The perfect example of one who perfect EQ is Jesus.
He talked in many different metaphors.
The other with high EQ is Colin Powell.
Powell used a parable too, talking about structure needed to build great men with good character.
It starts young with kids learning to listen for lessons learned from those with real wisdom.
IQ is not enough to get the whole truth and nothing but the truth
And to make a decision alone, is a vice and not a virtue. Prudence is a virtue.
There are four cardinal virtues meaning hinges. I won’t reveal them here.
And many many more vices to shed, until you reach contentment.
You revealed you are American and not German.
Karsten, I can say you are a good man and know you can become much better. It helps to take lessons from better men.
Listen to your Elders. They made many mistakes and corrected.
I have compassion for you.
Don Wesley 50+
I ask should be considered along with other parts of my argument .
Shortly after the War, Saddam was sentenced to hang until dead.
This was done, when his own country-men, were free, from being killed by him.
He was a psychopathic killer, and had to be stopped before “he alone” with all the power of the nation he commanded would kill even more.
He already used poison and missiles.
He invaded Kuwait, destroying, stealing and killing.
As Commander-in-Chief, he could have surrendered and prevented the costs of war, but he didn’t.
I don't believe in lying, so what would you have done to catch and stop him.
I have often said to people who say they have to lie to live. I say don’t lie but don’t be stupid either.
Some actions are justifiable.
The United Nation Members are all brilliant minds, with years of wisdom and can’t be fooled.
Take all the partial knowledge from each brilliant mind and string it all together.
Then do the mathematical reasoning and see the whole truth. Then take action that stops the crazy leaders who destroy, steal and kill, without conscience or remorse. Full of their own Ego.
Even in Canada we have man-made suffering. Why and how-come?
When the Prime Minister of Canada, one day,a few years back, called into force “The War Measures Act,” he was asked by a CBC reporter whether it was more foolish than wise to do so. A Minister had been killed by Quebec terrorists and a British diplomat had been kidnapped.
He replied that he would not give in to weak-kneed criers. Pierre Trudeau was not for War, but knew when the power the military was necessary.
Torbjörn Englund
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Karsten Grunert
Don Wesley 50+
Your question is very sharp and so is my answer.
You are using dis-honest argument, by extending it.
The question as defined is Powell a war criminal?
Don Wesley 50+
Hi once again Karsten,
in a state of Awareness and Caring,
I respectfully respond to you.
As children of God we are all good.
When we do wrong, we are doing the work of he who is evil!
Who has not sinned?
In two months Karsten, I will be 80. During all these years,
I never stopped learning.
I still only have partial knowledge. No one knows all.
Only The One Above knows all.
As a young man I learned that there is honest-argument
and there is dishonest-argument.
There many examples of arguing dishonestly;
the one I see here is "extending an argument,
used when an opponent can't win the argument as it is defined."
As an opponent in this argument,
I point out that you haven’t even countered my argument;
you just ignore it and and extend the argument hoping to confuse.
Respectfully yours
Don Wesley [From the Silent Generation 1930’s]
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
When we do wrong, we are doing the work of he who is evil!
This is your personal belief. It would be more appropriate to state it as such so as not to force your beliefs onto others. i.e. I belief that "as children of God we are all good.
Don Wesley 50+
You are right to point this out.
This where I decided to put my trust; in God.
In no way can I challenge how others reason.
My reply was situational.
Respectfully yours
Don Wesley
Karsten Grunert
Let me try this. I care too. I believe that the Iraq war was wrong. The reason I believe this is that the entire basis of prosecuting the war was wrong. Iraq DID NOT have WMD's when we invaded. Thus the millions of Iraqi who died or were displaced were killed when they weren't guilt of the crime for which they were accused. Thus the hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the US died for a cause that was wrong.
Powell was one of the chief reasons this error was made. He presented "evidence" that turned out to be wrong, cooked or deliberately distorted. I consider doing what he did to be contrary to the oath he took, contrary to the duty of his position, morally wrong and politically irresponsible.
Further, Powell himself now admits much of this.
If you believe that my agreement is wrong, please point out where you believe me to be in error and stop harping that you don't like my style.
You have said several times now that I am ignoring your argument. For the love of Pete, would you please make it in a single readable sentence or two and get on with it?
Don Wesley 50+
To use your figure of speech and what nasty's it implies, "For the love of Pete"
I add, Karsten, in what structure of learning did you not learn to read?
Really I’m laughing now because, of the non-sense you keep blowing into my old eyes.
If I didn't laugh, I’d be crying for all the damage your doing.
You are doing a lot of dis-honest arguing.
With an expression like "For the love of Pete" I am wondering; are you American living in Europe?
Respectfully and full of compassion
I know we do care about one another and want justice to right the wrongs we see.
Truth is found resting on three columns: Strength, Wisdom and Beauty.
Don
Karsten Grunert
I have learned to read. This is why I have such a hard time understanding you. You do not seem to follow any systematic thought progression.
Will you please stop writing in lame metaphors and pseudo-poetic language. You fool no one.
Don Wesley 50+
Hi Karsten
The circumstantial evidence about Iraq, along with history accepted by the UN justified their decision.
Not to have acted would have been a lost-opportunity costing much more harm.
I repeat what you ignore in this equation, which is “The Iraqi leadership could have let the UN in and there would have been no blood-shed.” Factor this into the equation; to leave it out is leaving the whole truth hidden.
Who profited from the War? In whose pockets is the money?
When the given paradigm doesn't reveal the answer, enlarge it and factor more in!
And get a smarter mathematician.
I didn’t trust the motivation of Bush! Colin Powell was trustable and chosen to deliver the message
Action was needed and not more delays by the UN.
Nor did I feel that there was clear evidence that there were Nuclear weapons.
But given who Saddam was and what he was capable of doing, required action not more debate.
I felt absolutely certain he was trying to get more weapons and even without his killing would increase.
I say again if you must, “Blame the UN for being useless in times of clear danger.”
They needed to leap out of logic and into Intuition to see the whole truth.
They were playing the evil game of confusion. It is where the money is!
The US was right to use every opportunity “to kill this psychopathic serial killer.”
Unstopped; they think they are unstoppable and the rate of their killing increases.
To be heroic and kill the obvious “serial killer” can take obsessive behaviour at times to succeed.
At times like these, the courts with their Aristotelian logic-systems of justice are just too slow.
They “cannot” be allowed to change their own system.
Don
Karsten Grunert
In all your many words, you have yet to speak the simple truth: Colin Powell lied about Iraq.
This lie cause hundreds of thousands of people to be harmed. I'm sorry that this causes you distress, however it is true.
You are rewriting history. The US did not enter the war to kill Saddam Husein. It entered the war on the premise of removing the WMD's. These WMD's didn't and don't exist. Iraq was never a threat in this way.
Look at the situation. Your government lied to you. Have you not considered that they will do it again?
Don Wesley 50+
I have replied with respect and humility
in the General comments.
Some how, I could not Submit them here.
edward long 100+
Location- Weapon Used- Date- Casualties
Haij Umran Mustard August 1983 fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish
Panjwin Mustard October–November 1983 3,001 Iranian/Kurdish
Majnoon Island Mustard February–March 1984 2,500 Iranians
al-Basrah Tabun March 1984 50-100 Iranians
Hawizah Marsh Mustard & Tabun March 1985 3,000 Iranians
al-Faw Mustard & Tabun February 1986 8,000 to 10,000 Iranians
Um ar-Rasas Mustard December 1986 1,000s Iranians
al-Basrah Mustard & Tabun April 1987 5,000 Iranians
Sumar/Mehran Mustard & nerve agent October 1987 3,000 Iranians
Halabjah Mustard & nerve agent March 1988 7,000s Kurdish/Iranian
al-Faw Mustard & nerve agent April 1988 1,000s Iranians
Fish Lake Mustard & nerve agent May 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
Majnoon Islands Mustard & nerve agent June 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
South-central border Mustard & nerve agent July 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
an-Najaf -
Karbala area Nerve agent & CS March 1991 Unknown
Don Wesley 50+
Thank you so much for bringing this forward.
In simple ways, we can all be heroes
Don
Karsten Grunert
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTldYbqlJc8
The dates you cite are not the time Powell was beating the drum for war. You neglected to mention the important point that after the US invasion, no WMD's were found. This is exactly as the Iraqi government declared and exactly contrary to what Powell asserted wrongly.
Since we are citing CIA public sources, I suggest you peruse this declassified report issued by the CIA. In it, they analyze the intelligence failures that led to the disaster that was Iraq and the complete intelligence failures that led up to this war.
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/104944423?access_key=key-19nu1y80mg3glkkzahoc
I am going to say it one more time: the entire basis for the war in Iraq was wrong. I am saying this because it is true. Moreover, the CIA agrees with me.
Why don't you take a nice long dip in the pool of truth. Come on in, the water's fine.
edward long 100+
Barry Palmer 50+
My answer is NO.
Please note the dates on the CIA list. All of those dates are long before the invasion of Iraq which started in March of 2003. In the first Persian Gulf war we knew where the WMDs were located and we bombed them. I remember this from the press briefings. I was reminded of this fact while reading the autobiography of General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. "in the days leading up to our invasion" there were no WMDs in Iraq, and in my opinion the administration knew this fact.
Don Wesley 50+
Hi Karsten
I took some time to think before responding; I hope it has been enough.
I hope our conversation will bring more light.
I understand your frustration, and applaud your unrelenting obsession to change the records of history.
It does take obsessive behaviour at times to be heroic.
But to conclude that “one man”, Colin Powell is guilty of what you accuse him of doing, is evil.
Have “all the men” in UN account for being weak in times of clear danger.
To blame one is very suspicious.
Look at North Korea now, after all these of UN smoke-screen years; they blew logic in our eyes.
True, in Iraq they didn't find the body of a WMD-Building, yet. Some have a passion, of solving crimes after years and years of being forgotten. The victims need closure. You and I agree, I think.
I have a passion for The-Present! I am trying to reveal the unconscionable decisions of courts and “police who are made useless by lies in affidavits.” They are brutally destroying and stealing, cyclically and daily in little lots every day. The little daily lots are huge in units of years. The carnage happening every day, is man-made.
Why aren't we stopping it now?
There are times when military power [to kill] has to show its power; “stop-immediately or be killed.”
Let us hope our elected are wise and our electors are not asleep.
See Part 2
Don Wesley 50+
Honni Soit Qui Mal y Pense:
Notes Sur La Formation Du Franco-Normand Et de L'Anglo-Saxon
Don Wesley 50+
The evidence was circumstantial, but seemed highly probable that “Iraq” had plans underway to produce weapons of mass destruction.
The UN made the decision to invade, based upon the evidence.
Circumstantial evidence has different rules of proof.
Not to invade would be reckless.
Furthermore, one would have to prove that Colin Powell had a guilty mind. (Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind")
To prove him guilty without a proper trial is evil
The motto for the whole British Empire >> “Evil to he who evil thinks.”
Karsten Grunert
First, this forum is not a court of law. It is a public collection of various ideas, thoughts and feelings. Please stop with all the ranting about due process. It doesn't apply here.
Second, while you misapply due process and evidentiary requirements in this forum and demand evidence, you then take exactly the opposite position regarding Powell's behavior in the events leading up to the Iraq war. In this case, Iraq was essentially on trial for its life. (Never mind the blatant loonacy of this trial given that the US, Britain, France and Israel already possess the same weapons that Iraq was accused of having.)
If Iraq was found guilty of possessing weapons of mass destruction in what was essentially a trial, Iraq would be the object of war. In this trial, Powell acted as a prosecutor, and as a witness and as chief executioner. I will say that again - Powell was prosecutor, witness and executioner. If the verdict was "guilty", Powell would get the opportunity of a lifetime for a military man - being the supreme commander of a multinational coalition in a large scale war.
Powell came to this trial with evidence that was cooked. He knew it was cooked when he presented it. This make it a lie and not just an untruth.
The result of this was that Powell got his war, got his command and was the executioner of hundreds of thousands, including his own countrymen. It turns out that Iraq was innocent of the "crimes" that Powell accused them of. He admits this himself.
These confluence of facts, the lies, the breakdown of the morality at the highest levels in the US government, the lack of character in a top military commander, the lack of judicial oversight or action once the truth was learned, the deaths and worst, the fact that nothing has been remedied to prevent this happening again and that he still walks free, raises this event to a national outrage and tragedy.
Don Wesley 50+
Given what you feel, I can understand what you have written.
But this is an argument and logic is the way to determine our answers.
If we are wrong, God will make the final judgement.
The UN had all the evidence and all the worlds best talent to calculate the probabilities. I believe they made the right decision. I also admit there could be error.
I feel sad for the hurt you are experiencing Karsten, but you are building your whole view in your mind, which ‘may’ be delusional.
Maybe you should question your mental motivation.
I know it hurts to feel there is injustice.
I pray you find peace Karsten.
I do not believe Gen Powell, is guilty of what you are accusing.
In my heart I feel he is an honest man.
Don Wesley [From the Silent Generation 1930’s]
Karsten Grunert
Don, Powell himself has admitted this. Are you calling him a liar?
The upshot of this is that the entire basis for the war was wrong. This means that Iraq and the Iraqi people were targeted in error. They were innocent of the crimes that Powell claimed wrongly and deceitfully.
You like to dance around this issue, but the cold hard truth is that he was wrong when he said what he said and he knew it.
You can believe what you like, but the facts remain.
Don Wesley 50+
Kindly follow my reply of two parts just minutes ago
Respectfully
Don
Steve Funder
War is murder? Well then, imprisonment is bondage, taxation is extortion and debt is indentured servitude. What a lovely and totally irrelevant semantic evaluation.
Yes. Murderous crimes are committed during war, and people tend to commit atrocities when they have the opportunity to subjugate others, and government and the aristocracy use deception and profiteering to serve their endless agendas. I already knew that.
Can anyone suggest a solution? I’m sure that our leaders would exhibit an ardent interest in the decisive conclusion to problems like Hussein dropping chemical weapons of mass destruction on Kurdish populations without any military target, or like militants embracing Islamic Jihad and attacking targets comprised of exclusively civilians.
I’m sure that peace was very popular among the victims of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Milosevic, Kim Jong-il and countless others with similar leadership styles. Why don’t we dig up their dead bodies from the mass graves and ask them how it worked out for them?
Do we have the right to target psychopaths whose sole objective in life is to kill people because of religion or politics? Where do my rights end and your rights begin?
It seems to me that I have the right to kill you if you are obviously trying to kill me.
It is the blatant disregard for human rights that initiate the need for retaliation and containment. This is vastly different from the genocide being committed by the perpetrators.
Ken brown 30+
7 hours ago: Ken Brown - You asked for links - Read Up -
I'm replying here if you ever see this, either Ted deleted your post or it got lost. It just so happened that i kept the tab open on my browser that contained your links.
All of those links were not impartial but great to read. The only one that drew my interest was the mother jones article, yet that wasn't impartial either.
We all lived through the 9/11 event and the war in iraq, it wasn't a world war on terrorism it was solely an American war taken from my perspective of living at the bottom of the world. If anything there was judging by the UN video's a sense of urgency or pressure which looks to me as if it was from internal political pressure, i'm probably wrong.
America wanted blood and blood she got, if they want to string up anyone then you start with the commander in chief right through to the average person who waited for the response from their country that they had been waiting for for two years. Honestly we thought they were looking in the wrong place and chose iraq due to it's military was still in a weakened state and it's leader was not at all liked across the ME, Bush could have taken a different road and built up their intel services better and identified the core culprits and then went after them applying pressure everywhere but it didn't turn out that way.
And of course there's oil or is it?
Robert Winner 50+
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
The Obama administration has responded to critics of its use of drones (or unmanned aerial vehicles) to target terrorist suspects in Pakistan and elsewhere by offering the first legal defence of its policy. The justification was offered by State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh in a speech to the American Society of International Law on 25 March.
The use of drones to carry out targeted killings of alleged terrorists outside battlefield conditions has been one of the most controversial aspects of US counter-terrorism policy since President Obama entered the White House. Research by the New America Foundation has shown a significant increase in the use of drone attacks in Pakistan under Obama’s leadership, and targeted killings have also apparently been carried out by the United States in Somalia and Yemen. Among other critics, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, Philip Alston, said last year that the US needed to provide more information about its approach to targeted killings to answer concerns that they might be in violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law.
Among the questions raised about drone strikes is whether such actions, far from any recognised zone of hostilities, can legitimately be justified with reference to the legal rules of armed conflict. Since drone attacks generally take place in secret, and target suspects in remote locations, there are additional concerns about whether adequate guidelines are followed with respect to possible civilian casualties.
Laying out the legal justification for drone attacks, Koh said that the United States was “in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, as well as the Taliban and associated forces, in response to the horrific 9/11 attacks, and may use force consistent with its inherent right to self-defence under international law.”
http://www.crimesofwar.org/commentary/obama-administration-announces-legal-basis-for-drone-attacks/
Ana Pais 10+
Al-Qaeda is interesting in that the US always seems to know who did it and that we should spend trillions on threats, but little else. It is ironic that the defense industry needs just such a threat to exist.
Have you ever noticed that every place that the US is fighting for freedom either has oil or valuable minerals under it. What are the odds?
9/11 is/was a fraud. Every decision based on this event was politically, economically or militarily driven.
Barry Palmer 50+
I am no pacifist. I try to be realistic. If we determine that Colin Powell and Barack Obama are war criminals, then we must find almost every officer that ever committed to winning a war is also a war criminal. The myth that wars can be fought according to rules is absurd. Once you commit yourself to war, ethics and rules and laws become irrelevant. When soldiers speak truthfully and candidly about war experiences they speak of war crimes happening often, not rarely. War is crime, organized and methodical and ruthless. War is hell on earth. War crimes are the norm, not the exception.
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Barry Palmer 50+
I recently saw a documentary on the bombing of Germany during WWII, and saved this quote:
"I see this idea of just killing civilians, and targeting civilians, to be unethical.
Though the most unethical act in WWII for the Allies would have been allowing themselves to lose."
Conrad Crane
Bombing of Germany: American Experience
When winning is the top ethical priority, the rules of war are irrelevant.
Also, war crimes trials are only conducted by the victors.
edward long 100+
Of course if your information is correct it means Stormin' Norman thought there were no WMD's in Iraq.which really changes nothing. I am not implying that your information is not correct, I am saying that I have not heard that before and do not know the facts behind it. The West is not the sole producer of WMD's. Thanks, and I will look at the General's autobiography sometime. Be well sir!
Don Wesley 50+
Would you agree that you are siting on the fence.
I am recalling President Kennedy’s reference to Dante's Inferno.
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who remain indifferent.
Barry Palmer 50+
Having laws against war crimes is absurd because running a war according to rules is absurd.
War is killing and destruction. Conducting war consists of criminal acts. Expecting that an officer, a general, a commander in chief or a whole alliance of nations, will risk losing a war by following a rule book is preposterous and unrealistic.
Pointing out Colin Powell in particular is absurd when every officer that ever went to war is just as guilty.
The argument that war crimes trials are pursuing justice is absurd.
The whole concept of war crimes is an insane attempt at legitimizing vengeance. When the enemy leaders are captured, they must be hung, and we need a lawful means to hang them.
(Does any of this sound like sitting on the fence?)
Don Wesley 50+
Accept my apology.
I remember I think, that not to follow an order can get us killed.
If everyone would agree to the Commandments,
we wouldn't need war. But what is your idea for solving problem?
Never mind vengeance as a motive; what about the ever present criminal minds among us.
Please share with me your insight!
edward long 100+
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
In addition, the underlying issue is that President Obama, our current Commander-in-Chief, is viewed by some with the same derision. Why run from the issue? Let's explore it head on. It appears to be a minority view, abeit a very vocal one.
Karsten Grunert
The problem is that he is exactly what it says on the tin: a career military man who sold his soul to the devil and was the point-man to a whopper of a lie. The fact that he may be able to parrot some more noble cause or idea is irrelevant to his crimes and is, in the final analysis, insufficient to rebrand him.
Old generals don't die, they just fade away....and in Powell's case...in disgrace and shame.
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
I wrote "Powell's talk", meaning, the message of his talk.
A great deal of what you are asking is bases on your own interpretations of events and is therefore rhetorical in its nature, and that's fine. But as I pointed out, it represent the minority view.
Karsten Grunert
I fail to understand why you consider this to be controversial. You can find Powell saying these things in his own words. You do not need another source other than him. He convicts himself.
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Answer the larger question here. ""What about our current president?"
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
The United States affords its citizens a system of justice that requires a person to be charged with a crime, provided the right to a trial, and to be judged by a jury of their peers.
So, this seems to dictate that the term "alleged" war criminal be used.
Those eager to proclaim individuals "guilty of alleged crimes are also willing to deny due process this this case.
The fact that should not be over looked, even in the court of public opinion
Karsten Grunert
While the word "alleged" is proper for news stories, this term is inappropriate in that there is ample evidence that this is exactly what happened under Powell's watch.
I suggest that Powell be treated in exactly the same way he directed.
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
There is the mistake of the definitive in what you write here, in that you repeat the common linguistic error of removing the "qualifier" from you sentence, the qualifier being yourself. The statement is only true when it is written in the following manner:
"I believe" this term is inappropriate in that "I find" there is ample evidence that this is exactly what happened under Powell's watch."
This is not about Powell, this is about your limited perception of him.
...and now, what about our current President? That is the question posed here.
Ken brown 30+
This is an outside perspective and not privy to all the information about his time.
He was just following his Commander in Chiefs orders and left or was kindly told to retire during the second presidency term. Obama hasn't taken the country to war? and his first term was the inherited term? The second term is usually the initiation term but in this case it looks to be one presidency that escalated during Bushes terms and Obama's trying to bring it down. What the States need to realize is that the rest of the planet will tolerate the meddling but in the end they will discard it. History shows it.
If anyone would like to share some links to impartial information then i would gladly read up on it but lately i've become critical of the veracity of what i find online.
Karl Vosters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt5RZ6ukbNc
It is a lie.
Following criminal orders got a whole bunch of Germans hung during the Nuremberg trials. US military law allows people to disobey criminal orders. He has no excuse. These laws and rules are still in place in both international and US law. Powell is guilty of both.
edward long 100+
Reza Roboubi 20+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell
"
Powell's chief role was to garner international support for a multi-national coalition to mount the invasion. To this end, Powell addressed a plenary session of the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003, to argue in favor of military action. Citing numerous anonymous Iraqi defectors, Powell asserted that "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more."[39] Powell also stated that there was "no doubt in my mind" that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.[39]
Most observers praised Powell's oratorical skills. However, Britain's Channel 4 News reported soon afterwards that a UK intelligence dossier that Powell had referred to as a "fine paper" during his presentation had been based on old material and plagiarized an essay by American graduate student Ibrahim al-Marashi.[40][41] A 2004 report by the Iraq Survey Group concluded that the evidence that Powell offered to support the allegation that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) was inaccurate.
In an interview with Charlie Rose, Powell contended that prior to his UN presentation, he had merely four days to review the data concerning WMD in Iraq.[42]
A Senate report on intelligence failures would later detail the intense debate that went on behind the scenes on what to include in Powell's speech. State Department analysts had found dozens of factual problems in drafts of the speech [...]
".
Amaranda Geist
Both the Rome Treaty and US law have definitions for war crimes that include torture, murder, the deliberate or knowing targeting of civilians, the right of due process and fair trials, the prohibition of sexual torture and abuse and the taking of hostages.
The US under Bush #1, Clinton, Bush #2 and Obama have committed acts including the murder of non-combatants, the targeting of civilians, torture, mental and physical abuse, the denial of fair trial and the taking of hostages.
The US as a nation is guilty of waging a war of aggression in both Iraq and Afghanistan under international law. This is the most grievous of the war crimes because all the other war crimes descend from it.
Under the current definitions of both international and US law, these men are guilty of war crimes as are large numbers of people throughout these administrations. Powell's own offenses fit in here. He was a willing participant in a grand series of lies and distortions that promoted a war of aggression. This is particularly evil, because at least people like Hitler were honest about their intentions.
Ultimately, your question is interesting, but trivial. A twelve year old is capable of reading the definition and the history and coming to the only reasonable and accurate conclusion. The larger question is why given that the current law is so clear and unambiguous, does every administration so dramatically disobey it and why is there no moral or legal outcry that the situation be remedied
Mark McCann
By this definition, Powell is a war criminal many times over and according to numerous provisions. The same is true of Obama, Bush2, Clinton, Bush1, and on back many more. The United States is as well under the definition of "war of aggression" and its policies of torture and legal process. This also includes several of our allies including much of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. This also extends to the nations to which we export our torture.
It is not surprising that Powell would support Obama. Obama is not a man of peace, he is a man of exploitation and personal gain, just like Powell. Birds of a feather and all that...
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this is that if you sat 100 people down at random in the US and attempted this same discussion, it would likely turn instantly into an ideological brawl with shouting and flag waving on one side and utter apathy on the other.
I blame much of this on the mind numbing educational system and the wholesale indoctrination of the media culture.
The question you asked was "Are these people war criminals"? Perhaps another question would be "Is the definition correct?" or "Does it matter?".
Gail . 50+
To begin, I think that war itself is a crime, thus all who participate in it are, to one degree or another, war criminals. That means you (if you pay taxes) and me, as well as Bush, Cheney, and Powell.
I cringe when I see Powell's picture or hear his voice. I experience great sadness and extreme disappointment. Such a great loss of what should have been a great man. He agreed to participate in an ethical abomination that he KNEW was wrong. Why didn't he resign????? Why didn't he honor his oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies - both foreign and DOMESTIC???? (Bush/Cheney and the military industrial complex that owns our government)
I have a different level of expectation for Obama - because I never respected him in the first place (or either of his presidential opponents). My feelings are very different. I see Bush2 as being the most shallow president we have had. I see Obama as being the most hollow. He doesn't stand for anything. He (like Bush, et. al.) is also too easily bought.
Ultimately, I suspect, that for as long as Israel is the tail that wags our national dog, we will have one war criminal after another in office. And for as long as our economy is war-based, there is little that we can do about that. Israel serves us well in that regard. If we were to declare peace today (an option that we discard), our economy would collapse. Is there an electable president who would favor that?
Who do I blame for that state of affairs? Obama? Previous presidents? The people? Me? You? I'm not sure. So who is the war criminal? It would seem that we all are.
Mathew Naismith 10+
I would say yes, the US is being known as a war mongering state which isn't healthy & it doesn’t represent the majority of the people in the US but the minority in power, war is very profitable to various multinationals & politicians who support these multinational so it will go on. The economy might go to the pack & the people ruled by these multinationals will suffer but the big boys won’t.
War crime isn’t just pulling the trigger but ordering the trigger to be pulled when it’s totally unnecessary like in Iraq.
Love
Mathew
george lockwood 20+
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
But the truth is there. It is what it is.
Robert Winner 50+
TED being the ultimate site to condem anything military based on the declared liberal membership.
I would submit that our foriegn policy and diplomatic skills have demished our world image. That our leader is defined as the "Prince of Fools" by other nations and adds to this weak image by bowing to kings and pledging his muslim aliegence by doing so.
What politicians say during a campaign never match the actions that follow. It is all about getting the votes.
However, to be fair, it not the elected officials fault. It is ours, the voters. We are probally the least informed of how our government works and what the issues are of any I know of.
Good luck with the conversation. Bob.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
But to say that someone's effort simply to be respectful in meeting other world leaders (I am sure that was the intention of his posture) suggests muslim allegiance is not, I think, valid. As people's religious beliefs are their own, our default should always be, I think, to let them label themselves in this respect rather than our labeling them. Obama identifies himself as Christian.
He bowed to the Japanese emperor as well. I think also to Michelle on the dance floor? It is just a habit, perhaps because he is tall.
Robert Winner 50+
I wish you well. Bob.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
This may be why it looks different to me than to you.
pat gilbert 50+
Xavier Belvemont 30+
On paper, both Powell, the current president and the previous are war criminals. The sole reason why they are seen as anything besides that is because of the double standard in determining what constitutes as the good guy and what consititutes as the bad guy. If they were leaders of a sovereign nation or middle eastern theocracy the worlds opinion on such people would be a very different on the subject.
Comment deleted
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Comment deleted
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Stephen Ratner writes: "Although UN bodies have restated the importance of crimes against peace (which was the first charge brought against the Germans) since World War II, the UN’s members—especially Western States—have noted serious obstacles to actually prosecuting individuals. First, a definition of aggression specific enough for prosecutions of governmental officials remains elusive. Second, since wars are typically planned by many people in State bureaucracies, drawing a line of guilt might prove difficult. Third, criminal cases could encompass complex, politically laden factual inquiries ill-suited for courts. While some cases of aggression are as stark as Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, other incidents demand more careful scrutiny."