TED Conversations

Theodore A. Hoppe


This conversation is closed.

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."


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.

My thanks to TED for posting this debate.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 1 2013: Yes and yes and yes and yes and yes, to every officer and every President who has ever participated in war.

    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.
    • thumb
      Feb 1 2013: Are you suggesting that a country, such as England during WWll not defend itself?
      • Feb 2 2013: Not at all. As I said, I am no pacifist. I am saying that if you start labeling warriors as war criminals, you will be at it a long time. Churchill and FDR both authorized actions which are defined as war crimes. Leaders do not control wars; wars control the decisions of leaders.

        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.
    • thumb
      Feb 5 2013: RE: "My answer is NO."
      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!
    • Comment deleted

      • Feb 6 2013: I am not sitting on the fence at all. I am objecting to the whole concept of war crimes.

        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?)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.