Why do people continue to believe monstrous liars?

We have a number of countries trying to scare their citizens into believing that Iran is developing nuclear weapons materiel. But no one seems to notice that it is those same countries that were so terribly wrong on Iraq. Wrong because they concocted a veil of lies so superficial that they even sickened a yes man like Colin Powell....

Tell me, what would be the consequences, do you think, if a country ruled by an immoral crazy ever actually did acquire nuclear weapons?

The gratuitous slap at Colin Powell, a man who is on your side on this issue ...

Behind Colin Powell's Legend -- My Lai

By Robert Parry & Norman Solomon

...

The letter's troubling allegations were not well received at Americal headquarters. Maj. Powell undertook the assignment to review Glen's letter, but did so without questioning Glen or assigning anyone else to talk with him. Powell simply accepted a claim from Glen's superior officer that Glen was not close enough to the front lines to know what he was writing about, an assertion Glen denies.

After that cursory investigation, Powell drafted a response on Dec. 13, 1968. He admitted to no pattern of wrongdoing. Powell claimed that U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were taught to treat Vietnamese courteously and respectfully. The Americal troops also had gone through an hour-long course on how to treat prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, Powell noted.

"There may be isolated cases of mistreatment of civilians and POWs," Powell wrote in 1968. But "this by no means reflects the general attitude throughout the Division." Indeed, Powell's memo faulted Glen for not complaining earlier and for failing to be more specific in his letter.

Powell reported back exactly what his superiors wanted to hear. "In direct refutation of this [Glen's] portrayal," Powell concluded, "is the fact that relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent."

Powell's findings, of course, were false. But it would take another Americal hero, an infantryman named Ron Ridenhour, to piece together the truth about the atrocity at My Lai. After returning to the United States, Ridenhour interviewed Americal comrades who had participated in the massacre.

...

MAM Hunts

Powell did include, however, a troubling recollection that belied his 1968 official denial of Glen's allegation that American soldiers "without provocation or justification shoot at the people themselves." After mentioning the My Lai massacre in My American Journey, Powell penned a partial justification of the Americal's brutality. In a chilling passage, Powell explained the routine practice of murdering unarmed male Vietnamese.

"I recall a phrase we used in the field, MAM, for military-age male," Powell wrote. "If a helo spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely suspicious, a possible MAM, the pilot would circle and fire in front of him. If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front, but at him. Brutal? Maybe so. But an able battalion commander with whom I had served at Gelnhausen (West Germany), Lt. Col. Walter Pritchard, was killed by enemy sniper fire while observing MAMs from a helicopter. And Pritchard was only one of many. The kill-or-be-killed nature of combat tends to dull fine perceptions of right and wrong."

While it's certainly true that combat is brutal, mowing down unarmed civilians is not combat. It is, in fact, a war crime. Neither can the combat death of a fellow soldier be cited as an excuse to murder civilians. Disturbingly, that was precisely the rationalization that the My Lai killers cited in their own defense.

But returning home from Vietnam a second time in 1969, Powell had proved himself the consummate team player.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/colin3.html

Tell me, what would be the consequences, do you think, if a country ruled by an immoral crazy ever actually did acquire nuclear weapons?

Nice strawman.

Nice strawman.

Quote:

Tell me, what would be the consequences, do you think, if a country ruled by an immoral crazy ever actually did acquire nuclear weapons?

They'd probably drop them on Japan.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Tell me, what would be the consequences, do you think, if a country ruled by an immoral crazy ever actually did acquire nuclear weapons?

Well, so far, not much.



"I'm so rone-ry!"

Quote:

Nice strawman.

I don't think Brandon can be blamed for repeating this, DD. It is after all, what he was told by his government, by his vp and by his president, with supporting roles from other little minions. Who says propaganda doesn't work?

However, I assert that it's undeniable that nuclear weapons are safer with relatively moral, relatively sane rulers than with immoral crazies.

Quote:

However, I assert that it's undeniable that nuclear weapons are safer with relatively moral, relatively sane rulers than with immoral crazies.

Go do a little research, Brandon. Count the number of people who have died from US incursions, from US support for right wing dictators, for US policies that have caused the deaths of untold numbers.

Compare them to your enemy du jour and you'll quickly see just who the immoral crazies are. You haven't even read any of the material at the links provided, have you?

The USA has certainly had its share of immoral crazies. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are simply the latest.

Immoral crazies used nuclear weapons twice on Japan, specifically targeting civilian populations. Before these war crimes took place, the US dropped fire bombs on Tokyo and other Japanese cities, again specifically targeting civilian populations.

Between 2 and 3 million people died in Vietnam, all because of a lie, perpetrated by who, a set of immoral crazies from the USA.

The list is long and sordid.