Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stepped down as defense secretary on Wednesday.
So now a private citizen should be be tried for War Crimes?
Poll - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stepped down as
Absolutely, he should be tried. He was an archetict of the policy of torture and of "extraordinary rendition." The whole bunch, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfiled, Rice, and Attorney General Gonzales all eventually need to face a trial. These people weren't ignorant of the Geneva Conventions. They simply ignored them or redefined them or parsed words to justify their actions. They've cause so much death and sufferring, not to mention disgracing our country. In my opinion, they deserve the same kind of trial Saddam faced -- with a similar vedict.
Hey, Great choice of poll questions!! Kinda like "do you like beating your wife or not??" Get real guy, supporting many of the foreign policy decisions of the Bush Administration does not necessarily mean a person endorses torture of terrorist suspects.. Sort of looks like you just be a wee bit partisan eh?? I'd sooner look at the whole situation in a more level-headed pragmatic fashion... Now the Democrats have the House and the Senate. Let's see if significant policy shifts happen and when.. And, let's hope it's not in the form of budgetary restrictions on military support to the current Iraqi and Afghan governments as happened in the early 70's when Congress cut off military aid from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia..
Dave
Right. Three other wars we had no business being in. Barged in where we weren't wanted, lying to the public about our intentions, even about our presence in Laos and Cambodia, trying to impose our will on others, canceling elections, assassinating leaders who didn't go our way. When will we ever learn?
But of course these are the kind of questions that slant poll results to the result intended 
I know that I am not an expert and I have not heard anything on this forum to make me believe that anyone else is concerning the US gov't,the Iraq war or the needs of America in defense against Islamic radicalism!What we are talking about is cause and effect. Left together, they keep us on the straight and narrow. Separate the two, and you enter the broad road to self-destruction. You get irresponsible, absurd outcomes...bubbles...wars of 'choice'...preposterous fads, fashions, and legislation...panics, hysterias - all the great public spectacles that make our job so entertaining.
And now, here is Donald Rumsfeld. He 'doesn't do quagmires,' he once told us. But now, after getting the United States into the biggest foreign policy quagmire in history, he is off to a comfortable retirement...or maybe a multi-million dollar career - probably peddling arms, energy or state secrets.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are taking over both the House and the Senate. These are the same shirkers and hacks who breathed not a word of protest but went along every step of the way...never so much as raising a question...or lifting a phalange to protect America's military from a foolish war and its finances from foolish waste.
The gallows are too good for all them.
Yes ,after the fact,a lot of info has been reported to show many mistakes in judgement involving all these things,but who are you to determine that all these decisions are based on personal monetary gain or from a place of evil thinking!
Nobody hear understands the complexity of making gov't decisions with all the diplomatic myriads,involved with other nations if you have not been involved in the process.
Decisions had to be made relating to 9/11 events and the future possibilties in dealing with those kinds of security problems.With the possibility of nuclear and biological weapons to be used in the future.and strong action was needed and made at the time!
We the public have very little knowledge regarding the nations needs,so we rely on feelings to determine our judgements.How would you like to have all gov't decisions made by ''polls'' of the populace's feelings?
To protest,to raise issue questions,to challenge those in power are mandatory to insure better governence.Chastising,condeming and calling these people guilty without proof makes you worse then them who you judge because you have no real expertise!
Hang them all!Should fall on their sword!Says alot about the posters character in my opinon!Tie that with no condemnation of the ''real enemy'' actions is really commendable
Well Stan - spoken like a true conservative. Didn't think any conservatives came from California. 
The question that begs to be answered Stan is this: Who was the enemy of America in Iraq before the invasion of Iraq? Saddam? No. (Perhaps an undefined threat to Israel, but not the US.) Radical Muslims in Iraq? No. (There weren't any there prior to the invasion.) The Iraqi government and its biological and nuclear weapons? No. (They simply did not, and do not exist.)
Bush, and the Republicans have continually used the threat of terrorists to instill fear in the American people to get them to support their misguided policies. They used 9/11 as an excuse for invading Iraq despite the fact that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
The court of public opinion will prevail - along with history - in either fully condemning those that made the decisions in question - or exonerate all concerned.
The bottom line is that the arrogance that Bush and Rummy have exhibited over everything pertaining to Iraq can haunt them for years to come, and that arrogance, in the face of facts which discredits their arrogance, will leave most people believing that they are guilty as charged.
I would not give much credence to the argument about monetary gain. However, there is some basis for the argument about "evil thinking." There is plenty of credible evidence that would strongly suggest that the decision to invade Iraq was made before Bush and Company were even elected.Yes ,after the fact,a lot of info has been reported to show many mistakes in judgement involving all these things,but who are you to determine that all these decisions are based on personal monetary gain or from a place of evil thinking!
Of course, we must not forget that there was absolutely no credible evidence of any nuclear or biological weapons being in Iraq prior to the invasion. Similarly - there was absolutely no evidence of "Islamic radicalism" existing in Iraq prior to the invasion. The only claim that was made was that Saddam was supporting anti Israel terrorists in other countries. The so called radical Islams followed America into Iraq. And technically - despite the broad paint brush that is being used to describe the insurgents in Iraq - they are primarily fighting a civil war there, and cannot be defined as Islamic radicals. Yes - there are some radicals there but they are in the minority, and their sole goal is to harm America.Decisions had to be made relating to 9/11 events and the future possibilties in dealing with those kinds of security problems.With the possibility of nuclear and biological weapons to be used in the future.and strong action was needed and made at the time!
I like to think that I have some expertise in this issue. I knew for a fact that the reasons being given for invading Iraq were all bogus. As for finding conclusive proof of guilt - that will or would be exceptionally difficult to do because everyone involved in the decision making is able to, and has been able to cover their collective asses. Still, enough undisputed facts have been made public since the invasion to substantiate a finding of guilt beyond the minimal requirements of reasonable doubt.Chastising,condeming and calling these people guilty without proof makes you worse then them who you judge because you have no real expertise!
Hang them all!Should fall on their sword!Says alot about the posters character in my opinon!Tie that with no condemnation of the ''real enemy'' actions is really commendable
The question that begs to be answered Stan is this: Who was the enemy of America in Iraq before the invasion of Iraq? Saddam? No. (Perhaps an undefined threat to Israel, but not the US.) Radical Muslims in Iraq? No. (There weren't any there prior to the invasion.) The Iraqi government and its biological and nuclear weapons? No. (They simply did not, and do not exist.)
Bush, and the Republicans have continually used the threat of terrorists to instill fear in the American people to get them to support their misguided policies. They used 9/11 as an excuse for invading Iraq despite the fact that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
The court of public opinion will prevail - along with history - in either fully condemning those that made the decisions in question - or exonerate all concerned.
The bottom line is that the arrogance that Bush and Rummy have exhibited over everything pertaining to Iraq can haunt them for years to come, and that arrogance, in the face of facts which discredits their arrogance, will leave most people believing that they are guilty as charged.
Doc wrote:Well Stan - spoken like a true conservative. Didn't think any conservatives came from California.
I would not give much credence to the argument about monetary gain. However, there is some basis for the argument about "evil thinking." There is plenty of credible evidence that would strongly suggest that the decision to invade Iraq was made before Bush and Company were even elected.Yes ,after the fact,a lot of info has been reported to show many mistakes in judgement involving all these things,but who are you to determine that all these decisions are based on personal monetary gain or from a place of evil thinking!
Of course, we must not forget that there was absolutely no credible evidence of any nuclear or biological weapons being in Iraq prior to the invasion. Similarly - there was absolutely no evidence of "Islamic radicalism" existing in Iraq prior to the invasion. The only claim that was made was that Saddam was supporting anti Israel terrorists in other countries. The so called radical Islams followed America into Iraq. And technically - despite the broad paint brush that is being used to describe the insurgents in Iraq - they are primarily fighting a civil war there, and cannot be defined as Islamic radicals. Yes - there are some radicals there but they are in the minority, and their sole goal is to harm America.Decisions had to be made relating to 9/11 events and the future possibilties in dealing with those kinds of security problems.With the possibility of nuclear and biological weapons to be used in the future.and strong action was needed and made at the time!
I like to think that I have some expertise in this issue. I knew for a fact that the reasons being given for invading Iraq were all bogus. As for finding conclusive proof of guilt - that will or would be exceptionally difficult to do because everyone involved in the decision making is able to, and has been able to cover their collective asses. Still, enough undisputed facts have been made public since the invasion to substantiate a finding of guilt beyond the minimal requirements of reasonable doubt.Chastising,condeming and calling these people guilty without proof makes you worse then them who you judge because you have no real expertise!
Hang them all!Should fall on their sword!Says alot about the posters character in my opinon!Tie that with no condemnation of the ''real enemy'' actions is really commendable
The question that begs to be answered Stan is this: Who was the enemy of America in Iraq before the invasion of Iraq? Saddam? No. (Perhaps an undefined threat to Israel, but not the US.) Radical Muslims in Iraq? No. (There weren't any there prior to the invasion.) The Iraqi government and its biological and nuclear weapons? No. (They simply did not, and do not exist.)
Bush, and the Republicans have continually used the threat of terrorists to instill fear in the American people to get them to support their misguided policies. They used 9/11 as an excuse for invading Iraq despite the fact that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
The court of public opinion will prevail - along with history - in either fully condemning those that made the decisions in question - or exonerate all concerned.
The bottom line is that the arrogance that Bush and Rummy have exhibited over everything pertaining to Iraq can haunt them for years to come, and that arrogance, in the face of facts which discredits their arrogance, will leave most people believing that they are guilty as charged.
Not many people in California consider me to be conservative in most of my thinking.Most ''conservatives'' are in the South,I am a N.Cal guy from a very liberal area called Santa Cruz 
I have never been one for politic discussions because of a cynical nature and the lack of acceptance involved in anything necessitating less than honesty.In fact,I have only voted once in my life,I was 21 and voted for JFK!
I definitely am not a war monger and was a major anti Vietnam player in College.I did not protest or insult the servicemen of the day and spoke out vehemently against such actions.I would have liked seeing assault charges brought against all those that were spitting and verbaling abusing returning servicemen returning from that lousy war.
My opinions seem to follow the Bush/Rummy/Cheney veiws about Iraq and radical Islamists because of my standup nature ,patrioticism and IMO the threat of WMD's in the hands of individuals dedicated to the destruction of everyone not of their religious belief.
The fact that we are fighting the extremists in Iraq might be seen as a good thing to the Americans,nationalistically, when they realize that after 9/11,if not for Iraq,we could be fighting these same battles everyday within the continential USA with less restrictions on our defense forces because of our demand for no change in our ''freedom status''!
I saw Saddam as a liar,manipulator and disireous of of destabilizing the region that could not be allowed by America,no matter what or who was in the presidential office.His constant anti-West rhetoric,non-cooperation in the verifying process,past control and willing use of WMD's gave great credence to the position that he was concealing those type of weapons.
There might have been a ''mindset'' in the white house to correct the mistake ,that IMO most Americans felt at the time,of not removing Saddam under daddy Bush!But the facts are none of us know that to be true!I think it is a reasonable assumption though!
I still favor the removal of him because I believe it was only a matter of time before his actions made everything worse,plus the thinking that he had the WMD's was creditible.In hindsight,I see the major mistake of this admin being the real lack of understanding of the region that made them think they could set up a unity gov't government in Iraq!IMO,a product of man' natural profinity for arrogance when he is in the power chair.The thinking the we know what is right for other cultures is the major lesson and the major mistake that I would like to see President Bush admit and change our policy accordingly!
IMO,religion(defined by man as his understanding of a power greater than himself)are the dividing lines in the Middle East,Saddam ,as the minority religions political leader,had to be cruel and cunning to maintain power for the minority and his naturally inflating ego self!If the UN security council members that opposed military action against him,had participated properly in the sanction process,he would have fallen under his own weight without the finances to support his Republican bodyguards.But they didn't and they ,of course ,opposed any military interference to their business dealings!
I don't know if this is right or not,but I think ,in relation to military history,this focus on Irag?Afghanistan as the battlegrounds will be seen as brilliant military strategic planning for the minimum loss of life to Americans in a genuine ''War on Terrorism''initiated by 9/11.All the casaulties ,military and civilian,since the beginning of this war have been smaller than the war between Iraq and Iran,therefore probably smaller than what there would have been in Iraq during destabilalization without a non-US military invasion!
Bottomline is that in the age of Nuclear proliferation,the waiting game with radical extremists,whether religious or not,is a losing proposition.Talking to Hitlers,Khomenis,Saddams has to much risk to it and throwing in 9/11 commands preemptive action in my opinion!
Perhaps my ''conservative''veiws in this area are so apparent because I see a realistic threat that others don't see!I would hope that I was wrong,but my experience with human nature gives me a cynical veiwpoint and when a dangerous challenge that is realistic, in my veiw,presents itself,further talking is only good for setting up a military advantage(Like Iran is doing now!).Just like a personal situation,except you don't have a choice of moving away from the threat.Avoidance is not an option because times have changed.Battlegrounds are not defined and weapons are massively destructive!We can take the offense and standup now or we can wait and be destroyed later for certain
Already a longwinded post,but I also wanted to say that,Yes ,many of the problems in the Middle East are fueled by the USA support of Israel!I would ask everyone that argues this point,At what point do you walk away from a ''friend'' and your commitments to him?
Is there any doubt,without the support of the US,Israelis men,women and children would be slaughtered entirely?
How do you justify walking away or turning your back on that.Israels sirvival is in our hands and we are a basic Judeo/Christian nation that supports the state of Israel.More religious crap,but a fact!
-
valentine
Bit before your time I know, but what happened during 1939-41 when the jews were being train loaded to the nazi extermination camps?BKKSTAN wrote: How do you justify walking away or turning your back on that.Israels sirvival is in our hands and we are a basic Judeo/Christian nation that supports the state of Israel.More religious crap,but a fact!
I don't know Val!Lot of prejudice,politics,isolationist desires of the public,wishful thinking,ignorance,disbelief etc.etc.Plus as they were defined more as Jews versus Israelis ,so there was not a ''State'' to befriend or defend!White America was very prejudicial towards peoples perceived as different color wise and religious wise!
Whatever happened in the past would not justify turning our backs now.We all have much history to recall the unbridaled and indiscrimate slaughter involved when the Arabs make their attacks on Israeli's.There is so much angry and hateful emotion involved,plus many cosider a duty to their religion!
The fact that we are fighting the extremists in Iraq might be seen as a good thing to the Americans,nationalistically, when they realize that after 9/11,if not for Iraq,we could be fighting these same battles everyday within the continential USA with less restrictions on our defense forces because of our demand for no change in our ''freedom status''!
Bush, Rummy, Cheny & Company (BRC&C) have been making that statement / argument for a couple of years now - in an attempt to drum up support for Iraq. First, could is a very big - and ambiguous word. I could win the Lottery tomorrow. What must be remembered is that we are fighting those battles in Iraq because we tried to force our standards, beliefs and democracy on people who really don't want what we have to offer. Granted, the Iraqis want Saddam gone - but they didn't really want anything else that we had to offer - except of course, money.
I saw Saddam as a liar,manipulator and disireous of of destabilizing the region that could not be allowed by America...
Interesting - but we shouldn't forget that it was America that gave him the biological WMDs and stood by silently whilst Saddam used them on his own people. Of course, back then Saddam was anti Iran - so he was on "our side" no matter what he did. Then he became our enemy - and after Gulf War 1 we promised to support an overthrow of his government. Of course, we didn't follow through on that promise... So ultimately, it can be said that America has done more to destabilize the region than Saddam has ever, or could ever have done.
I still favor the removal of him because I believe it was only a matter of time before his actions made everything worse,plus the thinking that he had the WMD's was creditible.
No evidence backs up your contention. Saddam was not doing anything in the region. He was merely controlling his own population in an unorthodox way - which at one time had been sanctioned and supported by the US. The "thinking" that he had WMDs was nothing more than an elaborate hoax perpetrated upon the vulnerable post 9/11 American public. Hell, even Colin Powell believed that the alleged threats were not credible - but was forced to go along with the hoax because he was a "good soldier."
I don't know if this is right or not,but I think ,in relation to military history,this focus on Irag?Afghanistan as the battlegrounds will be seen as brilliant military strategic planning for the minimum loss of life to Americans in a genuine ''War on Terrorism''initiated by 9/11.
I have to disagree with this statement. We must remember that there was not a single Iraqi or Afghan that was involved in 9/11. They were all Saudis. Invading those two countries has done nothing but inflame anti-American sentiment within the Muslim world. No one today can defend our invasion of Vietnam - and I believe that history will be just as unkind about our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. There are many mirror images of Vietnam in these two countries today, and the images will become clearer as time goes on. Remember, we invaded Vietnam to stop the spread of communism and to protect the United States?
Preemptive action might be defended if there is a verifiable and legitimate threat against the US. To proceed on a "could happen" and beliefs that are not clearly supported by evidence, even in a post 9/11 era does not justify that preemptive attack.Talking to Hitlers,Khomenis,Saddams has to much risk to it and throwing in 9/11 commands preemptive action in my opinion!
Perhaps my ''conservative''veiws in this area are so apparent because I see a realistic threat that others don't see!
What you see as a "realistic threat" does not necessarily make that threat realistic. It could be posited that you have bought into the "threat mentality" widely flaunted by the neo-cons without looking at the big picture that others are seeing.
Realistically, America will experience another terrorist attack. It is inevitable. The probability of that happening are in direct proportion to the refusal of the US to pursue diplomatic relationships as well as the US continuing to force its values on other countries that don't want our values.
In the words of Chicken Little: "The sky is falling. The sky is falling."
No one is suggesting that the US walk away or turn its back on Israel. It could however be argued that because of the support of the US that Israelis are being slaughtered.I would ask everyone that argues this point,At what point do you walk away from a ''friend'' and your commitments to him?
Is there any doubt,without the support of the US,Israelis men,women and children would be slaughtered entirely?
How do you justify walking away or turning your back on that.Israels sirvival is in our hands and we are a basic Judeo/Christian nation that supports the state of Israel.
What is being suggested is that the US "step" on Israel and insist that it adhere to the mandates of the world community and UN Resolutions. Given that every other country that has nuclear program - including the US - must open its nuclear programs to inspections, Israel should be forced to do the same. It is pure hypocrisy for the US to demand that Iraq and Iran have an open nuclear program and not demand that Israel do the same.
What about the unbridled and indiscriminate slaughter involved when Israel make their attacks on their Arab neighbors?We all have much history to recall the unbridaled and indiscrimate slaughter involved when the Arabs make their attacks on Israeli's.
I firmly believe that if Israel and it's Arab neighbors were on a level playing field the desire to annihilate Israel would be greatly diminished. Granted, that desire has been there since Israel was established - and it remains today. However, since then, times and the world attitude have changed - so anything is possible. Alternatives must be found. If the US expects the Arab neighbors of Israel to come to the bargaining table, then all countries in the region must be treated equally by the US.
So back to the war criminal, torture and trial question...
What I don't understand and what I would have preferred to see would have been Saddam taken out of the politicized and volatile situation in Iraq for international trial at The Hague, as was the situation with Milosevic. It might have taken longer but would have resulted in less of a circus.
What I don't understand and what I would have preferred to see would have been Saddam taken out of the politicized and volatile situation in Iraq for international trial at The Hague, as was the situation with Milosevic. It might have taken longer but would have resulted in less of a circus.