Cheney teaches ethics to West Pointers

[ProfJohn]

Craig... if you can define 'war criminal' to mean what ever you want it to mean then I can define commie to mean whatever I want it to mean.

You call Cheney a war criminal, I call Hillary a commie, both are equally wrong.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig... if you can define 'war criminal' to mean what ever you want it to mean then I can define commie to mean whatever I want it to mean.

You call Cheney a war criminal, I call Hillary a commie, both are equally wrong.

Non-Prof John---Hillary being a commie is definitely wrong and almost totally unprovable---Cheney being a war criminal is something we are somewhat likely to see be tested in an actual court.--either in a domestic or international court and quite likely to be provable.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig... if you can define 'war criminal' to mean what ever you want it to mean then I can define commie to mean whatever I want it to mean.

You call Cheney a war criminal, I call Hillary a commie, both are equally wrong.

Non-Prof John---Hillary being a commie is definitely wrong and almost totally unprovable---Cheney being a war criminal is something we are somewhat likely to see be tested in an actual court.--either in a domestic or international court and quite likely to be provable.

Non-Lemon-Law--Hillary has some pretty obvious communist ideals, which is proven by many many quotes. You say that Cheney being a war criminal is much more provable, then fine, call him a war criminal once you prove it and we'll call Hillary a commie once we prove it, until then, PJ is right, they are both equally wrong.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig... if you can define 'war criminal' to mean what ever you want it to mean then I can define commie to mean whatever I want it to mean.

You call Cheney a war criminal, I call Hillary a commie, both are equally wrong.

Non-Prof John---Hillary being a commie is definitely wrong and almost totally unprovable---Cheney being a war criminal is something we are somewhat likely to see be tested in an actual court.--either in a domestic or international court and quite likely to be provable.

Non-Lemon-Law--Hillary has some pretty obvious communist ideals, which is proven by many many quotes. You say that Cheney being a war criminal is much more provable, then fine, call him a war criminal once you prove it and we'll call Hillary a commie once we prove it, until then, PJ is right, they are both equally wrong.

No, not really; not if you understand the difference between communist and socialist and capitalist. There are pretty reasonable capitalists that espouse moderate socialist ideals. They are not mutually exclusive and no where near as bad as a war criminal, which Cheney could quite easily be labeled. The sad part here is that some people in this thread actually think calling Clinton a socialist is accurate based on a few quotes, with no mention of the context in which she has espoused those socialist-like ideologies (i.e. the "greater good" is important, but not so much more important than individualism that it would effectively abolish private property the way real socialists desire).

 

[conehead433]

If there was ever one person who would be the worst choice ever to teach ethics to anyone it would have to be Dick Cheney

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig... if you can define 'war criminal' to mean what ever you want it to mean then I can define commie to mean whatever I want it to mean.

You call Cheney a war criminal, I call Hillary a commie, both are equally wrong.

Your logic is flawed as usual.

Being a criminal under law is not the same thing as having a political persuasion. Cheney is a war criminal because he helped launch and lead a war that is illegal according to among others Kofi Annan, and other experts on international law. If you wage illegal warfare you are a war criminal.

The title of this topic highlighted the irony of a known war criminal explaining the ethos of war to military men and women. The Geneva Convention is a central tenet to international law, yet Vice President Cheney discredits it in his speech. The Geneva Convention is also the law of the US, and as such the military men and women of the US are bound by it. It cannot be disregarded or ignored, no matter how much Vice President Cheney belittles it.

If truth is the first casualty in war, then in the "war on terror" the rule of law is a close second under the leadership of the Bush administration.

The last couple of days we have seen new evidence, from Seymour Hersh again, that the Bush administration were aware of the crimes in Abu Grahib well before they pretend they were made aware of them. These are also war crimes. And the trail of evidence points to the very top of the Bush administration in this case as well.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Nice trolling thread title we have here.

I seem to recall a thread calling Hillary a 'commie' being locked because of its title hmmmm

Ideological response, equating the very arguable case that Cheney is a war criminal with the absurd name-calling that Hillary is a communist.

Tell you what - any thread calling Cheney a communist should be locked, too.

Calling Hillary a commie has as much truth to it as calling Cheney a war criminal.
"It takes as a village"
"We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society. "

Actually I would say the currect administration is far more 'Red' than Clinton.

George W. Bush is not, of course, a closet Marxist. But many of his closest advisors, especially the neoconservatives, do have post-Trotskyite backgrounds. The original Marxist plan was for the socialist revolution to engulf the whole planet, and this plan was embraced by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. It famously came up against the buffers of Stalin?s alternative proposal to build socialism in one country first. In exile, Trotsky kept the idea of world revolution going by setting up the Fourth International in 1938. Within two years, Irving Kristol?the man who was later to be the founding father of the neoconservative movement that so dominates the Bush administration?joined it. Irving Kristol never renounced or condemned his Trotskyite past: in 1983, he wrote that he was still proud of it. Likewise, in 1996, Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute?one of the leading ideologues of the war on terror?coined the phrase ?global democratic revolution? in the subtitle of a book in which he attacked Bill Clinton for being a ?counter-revolutionary.? The book?s title, Freedom Betrayed, is an obvious allusion to Trotsky?s own 1938 account of his break with Stalin, The Revolution Betrayed.

Indeed, when President George H.W. Bush enthusiastically proclaimed the New World Order in his speech to Congress on Sept. 11, 1990 he was in fact using a phrase that had re-entered the political lexicon in the late 1980s purely thanks to Soviet leaders. Bush senior was eagerly heralding the imminent enforcement of international law?specifically, a United Nations Security Council resolution?by military might. ?We?re now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders,? he said. But this was exactly what the USSR wanted, as it struggled to disentangle itself from its Stalinist heritage. On Dec. 7, 1988, Mikhail Gorbachev?who once said he was going back to Marx and Lenin after the excesses of Stalinism in the same way as modern Catholics were going back to Jesus and the Bible after Richelieu and Mazarin?used the phrase ?new world order? when he called for an end to the division of the world economy into different blocs, on the grounds that there was in reality only one world economy, and for the United Nations to assume a central role in world peacekeeping.



http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_01_16/article.html

Nicely presented. There are also disturbing parallels between the Bush administration's police state tendencies -- unfettered domestic spying, secret prisons, torture, denial of habeas corpus, erosion of civil liberties, suppression of dissent, etc. -- and regimes like the old Soviet Union and communist China. Ronald Reagan must be spinning in his grave seeing what the neo-cons have done under the banner of his party. Calling H.Clinton "communist" can therefore be freely dismissed as hypocritical name-calling, meaningless propaganda to spook the party faithful.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: Craig234
I've long thought that soldiers (of any army) should be taught to use their own views on morality and to avoid just being tools that can be used for evil. I'd like to see more real ethics taught, not just indoctrination. To their credit, the US military does some teaching of that and has some freedom for the military to be exposed to 'free speech', as I understand.

Cheney is an evil bastard. His logic could as easily be applied to letting police sneak into the homes of criminals and kill them, because the criminals don't respect the same rules the police do. He also fails to note the issue that sometimes the US can have policies that are not just. Cheney is a fine minion for an empire, blind to its wrongs.

Did I miss an indictment and conviction by a court somewhere?

Criminals are criminals regardless of being convicted. Was Hitler ever convicted in a court?

Yes, he was.

Hopefully Humanity gets to convict Cheney someday too

and what would he be charged with?

Impersonating a human?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Nice trolling thread title we have here.

I seem to recall a thread calling Hillary a 'commie' being locked because of its title hmmmm

Ideological response, equating the very arguable case that Cheney is a war criminal with the absurd name-calling that Hillary is a communist.

Tell you what - any thread calling Cheney a communist should be locked, too.

Calling Hillary a commie has as much truth to it as calling Cheney a war criminal.
"It takes as a village"
"We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society. "

Which is EXACTLY what we do for corporations. We say their owners don't have to pay their debts. So before you start criticzing taking from someone to give to others, start advocating the end of corporations.

 

[Pens1566]

The only thing he could teach them is how to get multiple deferments. In their case, its already too late. So what's the point?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
The only thing he could teach them is how to get multiple deferments. In their case, its already too late. So what's the point?

I don't see what a record-holding draft dodger would even be invited to speak to West Point cadets? What's he going to tell them? Do as I say, not as I do?

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Nicely presented. There are also disturbing parallels between the Bush administration's police state tendencies -- unfettered domestic spying, secret prisons, torture, denial of habeas corpus, erosion of civil liberties, suppression of dissent, etc. -- and regimes like the old Soviet Union and communist China. Ronald Reagan must be spinning in his grave seeing what the neo-cons have done under the banner of his party. Calling H.Clinton "communist" can therefore be freely dismissed as hypocritical name-calling, meaningless propaganda to spook the party faithful.

It was just a section from the American Conservative article I linked. But I do agree with it and with your post as well. It's really funny when the current administration is venerating Regan so much but aren't even listening to the people who served with Regan. Buchanan has been against these guys since the beginning and even Milton Friedman came out against the War on Drugs before he died.