Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld Found Guilty of War Crimes

We go to war on phony information, make tons of money for the defense contractors, kill innocent civilians by the thousands, not to mention sending our own people out to die for defense and oil profits, and have no national interest to defend, and we get upset when the perpetrators get called war criminals? If these guys aren't war criminals, who is? And Obama is as well, for not stopping the damn thing like he promised.

Our Congress signs off on all treaties like the SEATO treaty. There is no serious thought to what it entails for future problems. Once a treaty is ratified it is up to the people in power when the stuff hits the fan to pay the price. If I were to sign any treaty I would back down if the French had any thing to do with it. We sign treaties to protect contries that have no way to come to our aid if needed. Korea is another treaty "kid" of ours. We will never get out from under that one. North Korea plays us like Lucy plays Charlie Brown. Hold the ball until he starts to kick it and pulls it away. North Korea will stop selling arms until we deliver the food and fuel. As far as I can remember when the balloon goes up in one of these countries those that ratified the treaty are out of office and stand back and yell. Unlike a job at wallmart a soldier can't decide that he won't work in the rain. I have been in the position that I would have liked to run and hide but didn't have that choice. Before you get mad at those companys that make the guns and ammo remember those guys out in the field need that stuff to keep their butts in one piece. I guess what it boils down to is when a treaty is signed some one, some time will have to pay the cost. Never send a soldier out with out the very best. You never know when the item you pay for will be required to keep you or your child alive.

I do not think there was a treaty with North Korea, just a withdrawal

Your theory would have been fine and dandy had GW, Cheney, Rummy and friends maintained their focus upon the perpetrators of the few who actually brought down the "house" that killed the 2000+ people. Instead they went on a wild goose chase and focused their attention upon individuals that had nothing to do with bringing the "house" down.

Bottom line: GW lost focus and 4500+ Americans died because of it! Originally Posted by bigtex

next time IB post his 10-15(?) reasons why we did what did. I am going save it post it when you donkey's make these statements

I do not think there was a treaty with North Korea, just a withdrawal Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

It's just an armistice -- an agreement to quit shooting. There was no peace treaty with North Korea; technically we are still at war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052600555.html
http://www.fas.org/news/dprk/1995/950313-dprk-usia.htm

It's just an armistice -- an agreement to quit shooting. There is no peace treaty with North Korea; technically we are still at war. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

does that mean Col Potter is still alive? and Hot Lips is still Hot?

does that mean Col Potter is still alive? and Hot Lips is still Hot? Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

No. Potter died and Hot Lips has grown old.


Loretta Swit




Sally Kellerman

No. Potter died and Hot Lips has grown old. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The original Hot Lips, Sally Kellerman, was way hotter than Loretta Swit. The movie was better than the TV series too. IMHO

The original Hot Lips, Sally Kellerman, was way hotter than Loretta Swit. The movie was better than the TV series too. IMHO

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Both women - born in '37 - are 75.

but seriously, we are still at war with North Korea. That means that we have thousands of soldiers on the DMZ that expect to be killed or taken prisoner the first 24 hours. I work with a former soldier who served in Korea. He said that they expect to kill hundreds of thousands of north Koreans but don't expect to survive the attack of artillary, gas, human wave attack. So I guess it is something to laugh about.

Both women - born in '37 - are 75. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I was speaking in the past tense. You're right, they're are both old now. I loved the movie even though it certainly had a liberal bias. Robert Altman, the director, said that the movie was really about Vietnam not Korea. The screenplay writer, Ring Lardner, Jr was a real left winger. He was black listed in the fifties and had been a communist party member back in the thirties.

but seriously, we are still at war with North Korea. That means that we have thousands of soldiers on the DMZ that expect to be killed or taken prisoner the first 24 hours. I work with a former soldier who served in Korea. He said that they expect to kill hundreds of thousands of north Koreans but don't expect to survive the attack of artillary, gas, human wave attack. So I guess it is something to laugh about. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I can't understand why we are still in South Korea. South Korea is a relatively wealthy country.Why do we have to provide free defense for them? If we stay there, the Koreans should pay us.

I can't understand why we are still in South Korea. South Korea is a relatively wealthy country.Why do we have to provide free defense for them? If we stay there, the Koreans should pay us. Originally Posted by joe bloe

I think the same can be said about virtually every overseas base. The old meme about "fighting over there instead of over here" didn't take over the horizon weaponry into account. At best, our overseas bases represent Americans who are hard to keep supplied even without a "shit hitting fan" scenario, at worst they are in the position to get cut off and essentially held as hostages.

Those who want a strong defense, those who want to stop being the world's police force, and those who want to cut defense spending need to realize that the one and only way all can be satisfied is to re-establish the credibility of our nuclear deterrent. Instead of cutting these weapons as the POSITOO wants, we should step up development and deployment of small tactical nukes. There is no better "bang for the buck" out there.

The "war on terror" would have ended the day Tora Bora was left a glowing pyre of glass.

I think the same can be said about virtually every overseas base. The old meme about "fighting over there instead of over here" didn't take over the horizon weaponry into account. At best, our overseas bases represent Americans who are hard to keep supplied even without a "shit hitting fan" scenario, at worst they are in the position to get cut off and essentially held as hostages.

Those who want a strong defense, those who want to stop being the world's police force, and those who want to cut defense spending need to realize that the one and only way all can be satisfied is to re-establish the credibility of our nuclear deterrent. Instead of cutting these weapons as the POSITOO wants, we should step up development and deployment of small tactical nukes. There is no better "bang for the buck" out there.

The "war on terror" would have ended the day Tora Bora was left a glowing pyre of glass. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

You're right about the Tora Bora reference. We need to let the whole Muslim world know if you harbor terrorists, and they hit us, America will blow up your country. Once they know that, the so called war on terror will be over. It's not really a war on terror anyway. It's a war on fundamentalist Islam; terrorism is just a tactic. The west has been fighting these SOB's for fourteen hundred years.

In the truest sense, our war on terrorism should be a war against Islam. The terrorists are practicing their religion exactly the way the Koran and the Haddith require. The notion that the terrorists have hijacked a peaceful religion is nonsense.

Osama Bin Laden is to Islam what Billy Graham is to Christianity: mainstream.

I was speaking in the past tense. You're right, they're are both old now. I loved the movie even though it certainly had a liberal bias. Robert Altman, the director, said that the movie was really about Vietnam not Korea. The screenplay writer, Ring Lardner, Jr was a real left winger. He was black listed in the fifties and had been a communist party member back in the thirties. Originally Posted by joe bloe

I didn't mean anything other than stating a, to me, surprising fact. I would have guessed that Kellerman was at least a couple of years older than Swit. I too liked the movie, even though I knew it was a leftist, anti-war movie. I like a whole gamut of leftist, anti-war movies, though I did recently see one that really reeks: Tunnel Rat 1968 by Uwe Boll.

I can't understand why we are still in South Korea. South Korea is a relatively wealthy country. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Consider for a moment that South Korea wouldn’t exist except for the U.S. military presence in South Korea. The Korean War began when Kim Il-sung perceived weakness in the resolve of the U.S. to defend South Korea. He mistakenly thought the U.S. would abandon South Korea in the draw down after WWII; never-the-less, he almost achieved his goal of unifying Korea under the communist banner.

Why do we have to provide free defense for them? Originally Posted by joe bloe

I did my stint at Camp Carroll near Waegwan. U.S. presence in South Korea has played a big part in keeping that region stable after the Korean War.

If we stay there, the Koreans should pay us. Originally Posted by joe bloe

An FYI, U.S. ground combat duties have been transferred to the ROK army, thereby reducing the likely numbers of US casualties.
The Status of US Forces Agreement (SOFA) grants land for bases and training areas at no cost. Various taxes and highway tolls are also waived; public utilities charge concessionary rates, while some public facilities are gratis.
Since 1991, the US has received assistance from the ROK for the cost of building military facilities outlined by the Special Measures Agreement (SMA). The SMA is renewed every 2-3 years and each time ROK's share of the burden increases. Unused money under the SMA should be repaid to the ROK. Instead, since 2002, the USFK keeps this surplus in a special fund which has now accumulated US$10,000 million. Under the SMA, the ROK paid US$725.5 million in 2007 and US$741.4 million in 2008 to the USFK, yet the USA continues to demand more.
In essence, the ROK is meeting nearly all the costs incurred in US base relocation through the combined payments under the SMA and the agreed 55% allotment under the Base Relocation Agreement. http://wri-irg.org/node/7314


BTW, I am for force projection and agree with Sun Tzu's old maxims: "The best defense is a good offense." "And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him."