Obama as a war criminal?

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
277
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Yeah I know, you think I've lost my marbles but stay with me on this.

If George W. Bush is considered a war criminal by many because of Afghanistan & Iraq, does Barack Obama fall under the same category because he has stepped up action in Afghanistan and pushed us into Pakistan while heavily embroiling the U.S. in Egypt (and perhaps soon in even more Middle East countries) ?

For what it's worth, a Google search at Google brings up many hits with
Obama War Criminal

some are well written and well argued, others clearly aren't. What's your take, is President Obama in that league already or fast approaching it?


I don't need to Google it... and can peruse thru LPSG and find dozens and dozens of reasons why Bush should of been tried via his actions, many of which Obama either continued and/or INCREASED.

I think as the inaugural confetti was being swept up ... it was a "Mr President... are you ready to read the grown-up Reality Binder we've prepared for you?".
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
277
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You should care about referring to people with ethnic slurs. It is against the forum rules.
http://www.lpsg.org/rules
http://www.lpsg.org/185361-forum-rules.html
Please read them

Industrialsize
Moderator

Yeah, and here's another "rule"

Trolling covers a vast array of behavior but mainly revolves around members who consistently post in a manner which they know will upset others

Yet, when it upsets only >10% of the LPSG it's fucking hypocritically ok. LPSG rules consistency, is about as funny as "shovel ready stimulus projects".

Actually no.... "shovel-ready" is still more funny.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Yeah, and here's another "rule"

Trolling covers a vast array of behavior but mainly revolves around members who consistently post in a manner which they know will upset others

Such as you and your repeated posts that take shots at "gay liberals" and tinker with race.

Yet, when it upsets only >10% of the LPSG it's fucking hypocritically ok.

They're just the few who have the balls to say something about it.
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
Is Washington on your shitlist? Lincoln? TR? You have some mighty high standards, dontcha?

Washington owned slaves.

Lincoln argued vocally that blacks were not equal to whites, and massively overreached executive power, including suspending habeus corpus.

America has a tendency to try and worship it's leaders, in some sort of odd paternalism. It's more honest and enlightening to treat them like the flawed men they were.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Washington owned slaves.

Lincoln argued vocally that blacks were not equal to whites, and massively overreached executive power, including suspending habeus corpus.

America has a tendency to try and worship it's leaders, in some sort of odd paternalism. It's more honest and enlightening to treat them like the flawed men they were.
I don't think it's fair to condemn historical figures outright by isolated facts in their biographies, while dismissing all the good they may have done or how they may have evolved in their thinking over time. Nor do I think it's fair to judge them out of historical context and accordiing to contemporary sensibilities. In some ways we may be more enlightened than those who came before us, in some ways perhaps less so, but there's no getting away from the fact we stand on their shoulders. Hopefully humanity will be even more enlightened in centuries to come (if it survives) and will not judge us as harshly by their more progressive standards, as you would judge those who came before us.

I worship no man, and all of us are flawed and imperfect, from the founders to the present day. That said, Washington was arguably the indispensble man during the revolution and the founding of this nation. Without him it's doubtful we would exist as we do. Likewise, Lincoln wrestled the Union back together with great political skill and against all odds. Without him both the abolition of slavery and the eventual inclusion of African Americans into society would most likely have been delayed by many decades.

Saying every American president for the past 220+ years was "shit" is ridiculously snide, rash, and ignorant. One has only to look to current events with tyrants and despots currently being toppled from their autocratic thrones in the Middle East and North Africa for a few contemporary examples and comparisons. For all our faults, the very modern notion of power being in the hands of the people was born in this country. You were lucky enough to be born in this country too where you are free to call all the presidents "shit", though obviously you take that very much for granted.

Frankly, your statement calling all US presidents "shit" says nothing about them, but it says a great deal about you and your immature understanding of history. I have said all I have to say and have no intention of pursuing this further, as there is clearly no meaningful discussion to be had.

 
Last edited:

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
I don't think it's fair to condemn historical figures outright by isolated facts in their biographies, while dismissing all the good they may have done or how they may have evolved in their thinking over time. Nor do I think it's fair to judge them out of historical context and accordiing to contemporary sensibilities. In some ways we may be more enlightened than those who came before us, in some ways perhaps less so, but there's no getting away from the fact we stand on their shoulders. Hopefully humanity will be even more enlightened in centuries to come (if it survives) and will not judge us as harshly by their more progressive standards, as you would judge those who came before us.

No, I'm not going to give a man a pass for engaging in chattel slavery for his own personal profit. You'll remember, Washington was one of the richest men in the country at the time of the Revolution.

Nor do I dismiss the good he did. That doesn't make him not awful for owning slaves. And yes, I know he freed them at the end of his life, which shows that he definitely knew he was wrong.

Interestingly enough, he was the only slave owning president who did this.

I worship no man, and all of us are flawed and imperfect, from the founders to the present day. That said, Washington was arguably the indispensble man during the revolution and the founding of this nation. Without him it's doubtful we would exist as we do. Likewise, Lincoln wrestled the Union back together with great political skill and against all odds. Without him both the abolition of slavery and the eventual inclusion of African Americans into society would most likely have been delayed by many decades.

In a peculiar way, the south actually a major reason that Lincoln freed the slaves. He did it as a political move during the war, not prior. He certainly was no stranger to the abolitionist movement, but he certainly was not chomping at the bit to free them.

Freeing them was a good thing, but he mad sure to tell people that they weren't as good as whites, even during his debates with Douglas.

Saying every American president for the past 220+ years was "shit" is ridiculously snide, rash, and ignorant. One has only to look to current events with despots currently being toppled from their autocratic thrones in the Middle East and North Africa for a few contemporary examples and comparisons.


You mean the despots that we've supported, by and large? Sure, not Gaddafi, but we definitely supported Mubarak and his pet torturer Suleiman. Shit, we've supported kidnapping and torture ourselves, often using these same despots to do it.

We have a long history of supporting despots and dictators.

For all our faults, the very modern notion of power being in the hands of the people was born in this country. You were lucky enough to be born in this country too where you are free to call all the presidents "shit", though obviously you take that very much for granted.

The modern notion of democracy certainly wasn't born in this country.

That's a hugely ahistorical statement. Ignoring the fact that the native Americans had democracy here before whites ever showed up, you should probably do some reading on Montesquieu and Locke.

Frankly, your statement calling all US presidents "shit" says nothing about them, but it says a great deal about you and your immature understanding of history. I have said all I have to say and have no intention of pursuing this further, as there is clearly no meaningful discussion to be had.


Ah yes...tell me I don't know anything about history and then peace out.

Clearly you want to have an honest debate, as long as you can say your piece and then not have to defend it. Right.

If we're going to shit and run, allow me to say that it's should be clear to you now that I certainly am not ignorant of history, and I'm guessing it's your own ignorance that has caused you to come to such a weak and superficial defense of these men.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
The modern notion of democracy certainly wasn't born in this country.

That's a hugely ahistorical statement. Ignoring the fact that the native Americans had democracy here before whites ever showed up, you should probably do some reading on Montesquieu and Locke.
It's not 'ahistorical' in the least. You're mincing words. I am very familiar with not only Montesquieu and Locke, but many great thinkers of the Enlightenment, and also the democratic governing principles practiced by the Iroquois (not to even mention the Athenians). I'm also intimately aware of how these ideas influenced the founders in structuring our own government, thank you very much. The point is, America was the first modern nation of international standing to be built fundamentally on democratic principles and to put them in practice, the model and influence of which eventually spread globally, and continues to spread to this very day in the most dramatic and startling way.

Ah yes...tell me I don't know anything about history and then peace out.

Clearly you want to have an honest debate, as long as you can say your piece and then not have to defend it. Right.

If we're going to shit and run, allow me to say that it's should be clear to you now that I certainly am not ignorant of history, and I'm guessing it's your own ignorance that has caused you to come to such a weak and superficial defense of these men.
My knowledge and understanding of history is actually pretty solid. I'm certain you would bring up plenty of bad examples, either in or out of context. I do not worship or idolize these men, nor do I think any of them were perfect, as I already explained. I am not remotely interested in trying to defend anyone, much less dueling over a comprehensive litany of good vs. bad things they may have done, least of all with the likes of you. It is my belief, more than that an inescapable reality, that there are a number who did quite a bit more good than bad, and without whom we would likely not be privileged to be having this free and open discussion. But to reiterate, there is no meaningful discussion to be had with someone whose fundamental contention is all the American presidents were "shit".

I'm not going to waste my time and energy. Good day, sir.
 
Last edited:

dude_007

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,846
Media
0
Likes
116
Points
133
Location
California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Yeah I know, you think I've lost my marbles but stay with me on this.

If George W. Bush is considered a war criminal by many because of Afghanistan & Iraq, does Barack Obama fall under the same category because he has stepped up action in Afghanistan and pushed us into Pakistan while heavily embroiling the U.S. in Egypt (and perhaps soon in even more Middle East countries) ?

For what it's worth, a Google search at Google brings up many hits with
Obama War Criminal

some are well written and well argued, others clearly aren't. What's your take, is President Obama in that league already or fast approaching it?

My take is that the bitter white men who sit to the far right of the imperial aisle will stop at nothing to take a decent President down simply because he is a moderately liberal Democrat. They also like to blame their prey for their own faults, a known and long-used Republican tactic.
 

dude_007

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,846
Media
0
Likes
116
Points
133
Location
California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Or should I say "try" to take down. He's a resilient one, that Obama! One of the many, many reasons I support and admire my president
 
Last edited:

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
My take is that the bitter white men who sit to the far right of the imperial aisle will stop at nothing to take a decent President down simply because he is a moderately liberal Democrat. They also like to blame their prey for their own faults, a known and long-used Republican tactic.

Obama is not really even liberal. He's mostly more right of center than left.

What you fail to understand is that it doesn't matter what his politics are. The goal is to oppose him because he's a Democrat. That's how you be an opposition party in America: Always fight and demonize, it doesn't matter what the issue.