21
   

So, do you come to praise Margaret Thatcher or bury her?

 
 
smithy988
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2013 04:29 am
@Frank Apisa,
well at least it was a relatively peaceful protest at her funeral

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8DnmfR_-WM

But i agree theres no good at taking shots at her now, she is gone, and at the end of it all she was someones mother, grandmother, and we should respect that
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2013 09:56 am
@smithy988,
There is a saying that one should not speak ill of the dead.

However, Thatcher was an important figure in the UK for quite a few years. Thus, it is important for all to know the good and bad about her service to the UK, so that the people do not repeat the bad aspects. Knowing history is of the utmost importance.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2013 12:07 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
There is a saying that one should not speak ill of the dead.


There are a lot of silly sayings, A.

Reagan was a bubble brained idiot, a war criminal the likes of Hitler, a D grade movie actor way behind the chimp he "starred" with. An immoral, amoral piece of scum that has been honored by, guess who, the USA. Thatcher can be his bride in hell.

You could easily do similar, highly accurate descriptions of every war criminal US president - is there one that wasn't, it seems preposterous I know, but maybe.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2013 12:50 pm
@JTT,
Hey, don't hold back on American presidents.

I would not call Carter, Clinton, or Obama war criminals. I cannot excuse JFK, who sent advisors to Nam, instead of doing a complete pull-out, which was much needed.
Moment-in-Time
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2013 12:53 pm
@JTT,
Quote:

Reagan was a bubble brained idiot


ROTFLMFAO!!!! I could not agree more!!

Quote:
a war criminal the likes of Hitler, a D grade movie actor way behind the chimp he "starred" with. An immoral, amoral piece of scum that has been honored by, guess who, the USA. Thatcher can be his bride in hell.


Definitely "amoral." Reagan also committed Treason against the US. When running against Jimmy Carter for the Presidency, he made a deal with Iran (who had seized control of our US embassy and were holding 52 employees captive) to *CONTINUE* holding our embassy 52 hostages **UNTIL** after the presidential election and if he [RR] won, he would give Iran the most advanced military arms available at that time. He did this using Israel as a conduit. This was called the "October Surprise." Reagan won and right after his inauguration, the 52 US embassy employees were released. It is a most abominable crime to bargain with a foreign country to continue holding US citizens when they could have been freed for a *personal* political agenda by any US citizen!

Like Thatcher, Ronald Reagan did not give a fig for the poor among us---he used his charm as an actor to mesmerize many Americans with the exception of the highly intelligent, the moderates and the non-stupid.....like Thatcher, he was an extremely polarizing figure; as soon as he became president the homeless began to appear on every corner of every US city.

Thatcher and Reagan were two of a kind, demons created in hell!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2013 01:23 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
I would not call Carter, Clinton, or Obama war criminals.


Obama has continued with the war crime that is Afghanistan. That, in itself is a war crime. He also continued with Iraq, which was another huge war crime. He has killed some 4700, virtually all innocents with his extrajudicial [illegal] drone program. He failed to bring Bush et al up on their war crimes, terrorism, felonies. Protecting war criminals, terrorists, felons is not only an international crime, it's a felony in the US.


0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2013 01:25 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
I cannot excuse JFK, who sent advisors to Nam, instead of doing a complete pull-out, which was much needed.


Not only Vietnam, but Cuba and who knows what other Central or South American countries. If Nuremberg were to be applied, JFK would hang.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 12:29 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
I cannot excuse JFK, who sent advisors to Nam, instead of doing a complete pull-out, which was much needed.


Not only Vietnam, but Cuba and who knows what other Central or South American countries. If Nuremberg were to be applied, JFK would hang.


I should have included JFK's Bay of Pigs fiasco.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 12:37 pm
@Advocate,
This is a fine example of pure evil, Advocate. Just the Cuba issue captures every president from Eisenhower on as a war criminal.

Quote:
Cuba in the Cross-Hairs: A Near Half-Century of Terror
Noam Chomsky
Excerpted from Hegemony or Survival, Metropolitan Books, 2003
The Batista dictatorship was overthrown in January 1959 by Castro's guerrilla forces. In March, the National Security Council (NSC) considered means to institute regime change. In May, the CIA began to arm guerrillas inside Cuba. "During the Winter of 1959-1960, there was a significant increase in CIA-supervised bombing and incendiary raids piloted by exiled Cubans" based in the US. We need not tarry on what the US or its clients would do under such circumstances. Cuba, however, did not respond with violent actions within the United States for revenge or deterrence. Rather, it followed the procedure required by international law. In July 1960, Cuba called on the UN for help, providing the Security Council with records of some twenty bombings, including names of pilots, plane registration numbers, unexploded bombs, and other specific details, alleging considerable damage and casualties and calling for resolution of the conflict through diplomatic channels. US Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge responded by giving his "assurance [that] the United States has no aggressive purpose against Cuba." Four months before, in March 1960, his government had made a formal decision in secret to overthrow the Castro government, and preparations for the Bay of Pigs invasion were well advanced.
Washington was concerned that Cubans might try to defend themselves. CIA chief Allen Dulles therefore urged Britain not to provide arms to Cuba. His "main reason," the British ambassador reported to London, "was that this might lead the Cubans to ask for Soviet or Soviet bloc arms," a move that "would have a tremendous effect," Dulles pointed out, allowing Washington to portray Cuba as a security threat to the hemisphere, following the script that had worked so well in Guatemala. Dulles was referring to Washington's successful demolition of Guatemala's first democratic experiment, a ten-year interlude of hope and progress, greatly feared in Washington because of the enormous popular support reported by US intelligence and the "demonstration effect" of social and economic measures to benefit the large majority. The Soviet threat was routinely invoked, abetted by Guatemala's appeal to the Soviet bloc for arms after the US had threatened attack and cut off other sources of supply. The result was a half-century of horror, even worse than the US-backed tyranny that came before.

For Cuba, the schemes devised by the doves were similar to those of CIA director Dulles. Warning President Kennedy about the "inevitable political and diplomatic fall-out" from the planned invasion of Cuba by a proxy army, Arthur Schlesinger suggested efforts to trap Castro in some action that could be used as a pretext for invasion: "One can conceive a black operation in, say, Haiti which might in time lure Castro into sending a few boatloads of men on to a Haitian beach in what could be portrayed as an effort to overthrow the Haitian regime, . . . then the moral issue would be clouded, and the anti-US campaign would be hobbled from the start." Reference is to the regime of the murderous dictator "Papa Doc" Duvalier, which was backed by the US (with some reservations), so that an effort to help Haitians overthrow it would be a crime.

Eisenhower's March 1960 plan called for the overthrow of Castro in favor of a regime "more devoted to the true interests of the Cuban people and more acceptable to the U.S.," including support for "military operation on the island" and "development of an adequate paramilitary force outside of Cuba." Intelligence reported that popular support for Castro was high, but the US would determine the "true interests of the Cuban people." The regime change was to be carried out "in such a manner as to avoid any appearance of U.S. intervention," because of the anticipated reaction in Latin America and the problems of doctrinal management at home.

Operation Mongoose

The Bay of Pigs invasion came a year later, in April 1961, after Kennedy had taken office. It was authorized in an atmosphere of "hysteria" over Cuba in the White House, Robert McNamara later testified before the Senate's Church Committee. At the first cabinet meeting after the failed invasion, the atmosphere was "almost savage," Chester Bowles noted privately: "there was an almost frantic reaction for an action program." At an NSC meeting two days later, Bowles found the atmosphere "almost as emotional" and was struck by "the great lack of moral integrity" that prevailed. The mood was reflected in Kennedy's public pronouncements: "The complacent, the self-indulgent, the soft societies are about to be swept away with the debris of history. Only the strong . . . can possibly survive," he told the country, sounding a theme that would be used to good effect by the Reaganites during their own terrorist wars. Kennedy was aware that allies "think that we're slightly demented" on the subject of Cuba, a perception that persists to the present.

Kennedy implemented a crushing embargo that could scarcely be endured by a small country that had become a "virtual colony" of the US in the sixty years following its "liberation" from Spain. He also ordered an intensification of the terrorist campaign: "He asked his brother, Attorney-General Robert Kennedy, to lead the top-level interagency group that oversaw Operation Mongoose, a program of paramilitary operations, economic warfare, and sabotage he launched in late 1961 to visit the 'terrors of the earth' on Fidel Castro and, more prosaically, to topple him."

The terrorist campaign was "no laughing matter," Jorge Dominguez writes in a review of recently declassified materials on operations under Kennedy, materials that are "heavily sanitized" and "only the tip of the iceberg," Piero Gleijeses adds.

Operation Mongoose was "the centerpiece of American policy toward Cuba from late 1961 until the onset of the 1962 missile crisis," Mark White reports, the program on which the Kennedy brothers "came to pin their hopes." Robert Kennedy informed the CIA that the Cuban problem carries "the top priority in the United States Government -- all else is secondary -- no time, no effort, or manpower is to be spared" in the effort to overthrow the Castro regime. The chief of Mongoose operations, Edward Lansdale, provided a timetable leading to "open revolt and overthrow of the Communist regime" in October 1962. The "final definition" of the program recognized that "final success will require decisive U.S. military intervention," after terrorism and subversion had laid the basis. The implication is that US military intervention would take place in October 1962 -- when the missile crisis erupted.

In February 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved a plan more extreme than Schlesinger's: to use "covert means . . . to lure or provoke Castro, or an uncontrollable subordinate, into an overt hostile reaction against the United States; a reaction which would in turn create the justification for the US to not only retaliate but destroy Castro with speed, force and determination." In March, at the request of the DOD Cuba Project, the Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted a memorandum to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara outlining "pretexts which they would consider would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba." The plan would be undertaken if "a credible internal revolt is impossible of attainment during the next 9-10 months," but before Cuba could establish relations with Russia that might "directly involve the Soviet Union."

...

http://www.chomsky.info/books/hegemony02.htm

JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 12:49 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
I would not call Carter, Clinton, or Obama war criminals


It is simply not possible for a person to become the president of the US and not become a war criminal and terrorist, Advocate.

Quote:
If the Nuremberg Laws were Applied...
Noam Chomsky
Delivered around 1990
If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged. By violation of the Nuremberg laws I mean the same kind of crimes for which people were hanged in Nuremberg. And Nuremberg means Nuremberg and Tokyo. So first of all you've got to think back as to what people were hanged for at Nuremberg and Tokyo. And once you think back, the question doesn't even require a moment's waste of time.

...

Ford was only there for a very short time so he didn't have time for a lot of crimes, but he managed one major one. He supported the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which was near genocidal. I mean, it makes Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait look like a tea party. That was supported decisively by the United States, both the diplmatic and the necessary military support came primarily from the United States. This was picked up under Carter.

Carter was the least violent of American presidents but he did things which I think would certainly fall under Nuremberg provisions. As the Indonesian atrocities increased to a level of really near-genocide, the U.S. aid under Carter increased. It reached a peak in 1978 as the atrocities peaked. So we took care of Carter, even forgetting other things.

...
http://www.chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm





Quote:


Clinton Is The WorId's
Leading Active War Criminal

Clinton's crimes, after just seven years in office, are competitive with Suharto's

by Edward S. Herman

Z magazine , December 1999

I use war crimes to encompass the commission of all acts declared illegal under international rules of war as enumerated in the various Hague and Geneva agreements and conventions and pronounced in the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals. Among these acts are the carrying out of wars of aggression, the use of poison gases and other inhumane weapons, deliberately killing and starving civilian populations, and the use of force beyond military necessity. War crimes can be carried out directly or through proxy forces that are funded, encouraged, and protected in their own war criminality. This means that inaction-failure to discourage or prevent the carrying out of war crimes known to be going on, planned for enlargement, and preventable-is itself a form of war criminality. Thus, if the Clinton administration knew that Indonesia was killing large numbers of East Timorese and planned to ravage East Timor on a larger scale if it lost an independence referendum, and did nothing to prevent the crimes, Clinton and associates were guilty of war crimes by inaction.

Clinton and Suharto

I put the adjective "active" in the title to this article because Indonesia's now retired president Suharto probably holds the overall top place today, as the person responsible for three genocides (Indonesia, East Timor, and West Papua). But Suharto had 33 years to carry out his crimes whereas Clinton has become competitive within 7 years. Who can doubt that if Clinton had more time to add to his mark in history he would easily top Suharto?

...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/ClintonWarCriminal_Herman.html



0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 12:49 pm
@JTT,
I think you are right.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Margaret Thatcher Dies From Stroke - Discussion by oralloy
Should I hate Margaret Thatcher? - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
Put your Margaret Thatcher jokes here - Discussion by maxdancona
Mrs Thatcher & Legacy - Discussion by CostaCoffeeBob
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 06:15:43