Former President George H.W. Bush has died at the 94
104 replies, posted
i can't find very much proof about there being civilian refugees in the convoy aside from allegations
Well considering that the only people that had access on the ground in any real capacity were those that carried out the massacre, I don't see why there would ever be hard proof?
Much of the evidence of what the Nazi's did across Europe is found multiple feet under ground in mass graves; if they had won the war there wouldn't have been any evidence of their actions.
so how do you know there were civilians in there if there wasnt hard proof?
there would have been quite a bit actually - it's really hard to not notice millions of people just suddenly disappearing for example, or the camps that were built that popped up, etc...
It's why the claims about the "german population not knowing" about the holocaust is false - it was nearly impossible to not know something was going on.
Always fun grabbing a bowl of popcorn and watching a thread devolve into a bunch of political arguments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VomgZcEiNmM
No idea. We're now going to be arguing in a circle here about evidence that was almost certainly covered up at the time, and as such, has little to no possibility of coming to light, so this convo will go nowhere.
Considering how much of a history the US has of covering up their covert actions(the fucking Iran-Contra affair occurred just prior to Bush's presidency which came to light on a fluke ffs), I think you could probably afford to give those that made the accusations the benefit of the doubt, but your biases are pretty clear so I'm sure you won't.
This is the same kind of delusion conspiracy theorists use.
browsing some wiki stuff on this quickly there was never any concrete proof of there being civilians, and also the proof points to a lot more people being let go who abandoned their vehicles than were killed.
The fucking estimates are between "200" and fucking 10,000+ people killed dude; what does that say about the flow of information surrounding the event. The US has taken rather thorough notes in every military conflict since WW2, they definitely have the exact figures of those dead, as well as the status of those killed(soldier, civilian, etc), yet have remained unusually tightlipped asides from claiming complete innocence basically.
We're also beating around the bush in regards to the fact that the actual attack was a violation of the Geneva convention even if every single person killed was a soldier. They were fleeing Kuwait, not attacking anyone. Maybe from a strategic perspective it made sense to annihilate them, sure, but that doesn't make it legal, nor remotely moral.
and I can tell you for a fact which one of those estimates is more likely to be accurate than the other (and it certainly isn't 10,000+ people).
this is the same for any conflict, gulf war or not. doesn't say much beyond the fact that accurate casualty statistics are a pain in the ass to actually get.
Doubt that.
Also doubt that.
Because there's nothing more to say? That's like saying the U.S. Government has been tightlipped about not saying it orchestrated 9/11 or some other equally inane BS.
In your opinon and legal scholars are obviously not all in some agreement about that.
Yes because this about recently deceased former politican who was President for one of two predominant parties, then this wouldn’t be big deal to criticize person’s actions in past for one last time.
legit why bring it up if you have no actual evidence of it then
In my experience, that kind of obsessive hatred never leads to anything good. It just encourages closed-mindedness and irrational mentalities and worldviews. Granted, though, that's not always the case, but I'm not optimistic.
Just FYI, I agree with you that it's probable that the US was lowballing the causualties (just because it's in their interest to do so) but a lack of evidence is not evidence. You can't really prove those allegations. On the other hand, it is undeniable attacking a retreating enemy when they pose no direct threat to you anymore is, at best, unwarranted. Did they pose no threat at all though? I don't know, I'm not a military expert. I guess there lies the true question. At a glance to me it seems like withholding that attack would have let a ton of military assets make their way back to Iraq. It's not impossible that they didn't even consider the fact that there might have been civilians in that convoy considering the sheer number of military vehicles present. If that was the case, fog of war could explain a lot. I'm not saying that the US shouldn't be held responsible but that's why we want to avoid war in the first place, collateral damage is inevitable. You can only try to mitigate it. No nation is gonna come out of a military conflict with its hands completely clean.
In my opinion, I guess a commander somewhere had to make a call based on limited intel wether or not they should let enemy military assets go and chose not to let them. I think wether or not it actually was a bad call considering the circumstances is up to opinion. If your goal is to cripple the enemy no matter what, it was probably the right decision and it IS the military we're talking about. But then we're kinda getting into the ethics of war and all that.
can you absolute dick heads read
half this shit is unconfirmed, why argue what you personally think? Its conspiracy retard thought process.
Thats why there is a range on the casualties, its unconfirmed. Just like there being civilians, we dont know.
"But other people were awful, too" isn't an argument, if anything it's an amendment. When Trump fans said "What about Bill!" when Trump's sexual assault cases came about, my response was "yeah, you're right, lock him up, too."
I'd have no problem with each president being publicly and officially condemned for their actions and any current living one acknowledging and apologizing for them.
Instead we have a trend of people (not necessarily including you) saying "hmm, I disagreed with his policies, but he was a respectful man with tact, indeed, yes" as if it's that he ignored the AIDS crisis because he smiled and said "please." Instead we've a trend of people (again, not necessarily you) saying "but your guy did it!!" to "provide proof" that it was "okay" and therefore no one should be condemned for it.
It reminds me of when #MeToo was bigger and I saw a post in response to "if you remove everyone from the entertainment industry for something like that, the whole industry will be destroyed!" saying: Let it. It's built on rot.
the engagement from everything i read was part of a larger campaign by the coalition known as Operation Desert Saber which was an outright invasion of Iraq, this was just part of a pursuit of other retreating infantry that just so happened to be on a densely packed highway straight to the city of Basra
We really shouldn't conflate Desert Storm with Dubya Jr's war. Desert Storm had a clear goal in mind and achievable end game: Saddam invaded Kuwait, a US ally. Get Iraq out of Kuwait with a coalition force was the goal and it was achieved, and everything was said and done. A bunch of countries at the time joined in with the US too. Saddam was still in charge, there was no state-dismantling and rebuilding and perpetual occupation that 2003 Iraq was. I'm anti-war and anti-imperialist but I don't think you can say Desert Storm wasn't justified and I recognize sometimes it's a necessary evil to have conflict.
H.W. did a few good things himself too, like sign the American Disabilities Act, Expanded taxes and unemployment benefits when he needed to, and expanded immigration to let more people in. I have a fiery hatred of Reagan who Bush was a vice president to, but Bush himself wasn't all that bad.
You know who you're replying to, right? Lol.
Oh, I totally agree with you.
At the same time though, I'd argue that the nature of public office (and as the head of state and government in particular) puts one in a position moral turpitude is going to be constantly and consistently put to the test at about as high a level as it possibly can, and in a position where easy solutions are relatively unclear.
Its very easy for me, and for you, and for some self-proclaimed Marxist-Lenninist on Twitter to point out and questionable action taken by the President. And you're absolutely right that we should do so. But the truth of the matter is that our voices are relatively inconsequential. I can say from the comfort of my own home that I would act differently, but I've never been put in a position where my actions, and the actions taken by those in my employ, will affect millions and millions nationwide and abroad.
I can easily say that the War on Drugs was a failure, and that the AIDS Crisis could have been handled better, or any other of the controversies I mentioned should have been done differently. But I'd be saying them in hindsight from a position of complete unimportance. I can't sincerely say how I would've acted had the full weight of those crises been upon me, with countless people trying to pull me in one direction or the potential millions of people's lives at stake. I've never been tested at that level, nor would I ever want to be.
I feel like a lot of people tend to inflate the role and power of the President in many situations, and assume that they know all and see all and steer the ship accordingly. Far more likely there are dozens and dozens of people presenting their version of the facts and pushing the direction of policy one way or another. In the end, the result is that we basically have to call 'em as we see 'em. As I mentioned above, the only President that I couldn't find a controversy for (and this was at a cursory glance - he still had some fuck-ups) was Carter. A man whose presidency is widely regarded as a failure for being weak and ineffectual, but is also considered arguably the greatest post-President for his actions once out of office. Someone who went from a position where their actions were being influenced and affected millions, to one where they had that freedom to act as they saw fit and had a far lessened impact.
I'm not gonna knock Bush 41 now that he's gone because, looking at his life as a whole, I don't believe he was a bad person, or that he intentionally set out to harm others. Admittedly the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but considering that we've seen Presidents take office who were genuinely rotten people as well as bad Presidents, having good intentions does matter if only to a small degree.
Desert Storm is a perfect example of why you should have a military in the first place, honestly.
At least we hopefully won't have to have this debate when Trump dies.
Yup.
Imagine if Putin died, I bet in the thread there will still be people who would try to respect his death. Lmao.
I understand and agree with respecting the unliving, but as the (FULL) saying goes "You either speak good, or nothing but truth, about the dead"
did he ever get that hat back from Obama
https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/1069007758693941249
It's absolutely going to happen and I dread it.
How is that going to happen if Trump dies in jail while serving a life sentence for treason against the United States?
(Obviously I know there's a chance he'll be pardoned and/or escape with a slap on the wrist, while everyone else involved takes the brunt of the punishment, but I'm hoping for the best case scenario in regards to the end of the Mueller investigation.)
Really if it could happen to Bush Jr, it could happen to Trump
I hate how people thinking that not pissing on people's graves is automatically enabling that person.
Christ, some of you people have to go outside for once in your lives.
As much as people rightfully do hate W, he is a fucking saint compared to Trump.
I don't like the Bushes for some of the neoconservative bullshit they pushed during their time in politics, but Sr. at least deserves my respect for having served this country in WWII.
Beyond that, nothing else.
https://youtu.be/Z3p9y_OEAdc
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.