Fitrakis and Wasserman: Bush Would Be Guilty at Nuremburg

This isn't 1953 and Iraq isn't Russia.

Wow. Interesting how that works both ways.

 

Sorry, I don't speak Slavic.

 

Hmmm, i thought anyone that used a WWII, or even a historical analogy was a big moron. By the way, "Bush would be guilty at Nuremburg," for what? Last time I checked we weren't at war. Way to go Fred Durst Jr.

 

What a waste of internet space (the article that is).

 

Another attempt at linking Bush to Hitler. It's amazing how far liberals will stretch to make this comparison.

 

Re: Answer the Question? Can You Do That???

We ARE thinking long term. People that have a "let's give Iraq a break" attitude have not been paying attention to what Hussein has done for the last 20+ yrs. Attacking neighbors at will, gassing & torturing his own people, defying the UN time after time after time. We know this guy's a threat & a menace no matter how much time we give him to comply. It's like letting a tiger out of its cage because it's purring and cuddly at the moment. Take your eyes off Saddam or allow him to secretly build up his weapons (as he's surely been doing since '98) and he'll be a menacing tiger in the Mideast.

 

Legally speaking, the war is not a new war, but rather a continuation of the previous war. Iraq is in blatant violation of its cease fire agreement, therefore a state of war exists.

Moreover, it doesn't much matter, because Bush will win, whereas Hitler did not. The course of the world is based on power, not per se on morality. In fact, Nuremberg is as much an exercise of power and practical political consideration as it is of morality. You can go around pointing the finger at Bush, but as long as he uses his power to improve security and living conditions in ther long term, I am fine with it.

 

You're correct here: one of the interesting things about how the charges at Nurembug were drawn up was that it was basically, "Whatever bad stuff the Nazis did that we DIDN'T also do. The bad stuff we both did can't be a war crime!"

Regardless, it's pathetic how complacent you are in the face of it. Do you really hate and despise humans so much to think we're not capable of better?

 

Re: Re: Answer the Question? Can You Do That???

You're right. Reagan and Bush should be ashamed.

In answer to the thread's premise...Bush isn't guilty NOW, geniuses. We're talking about if he invades without the UN.

Actually, he probably wouldn't be. You could say that after that resolution, we've been in a state of "war" with Saddam, so it's not an undeclared war.

 

Re: Re: Re: Answer the Question? Can You Do That???

 

We are capable of better, and I actually do expect better. I merely point out that some of the current supposed touchstones of international law really are not as sacrosanct as they seem. In particular Nuremberg was a political show trial that had the great benefit of having really despicable villains. I think it would be unwise to limit our political and military options in a Hobbesian world based on so mercurial a source.

In thinking about this thread a little more, I think one of the big problems is that the left seems to be preoccupied with the morality of the war's beginning, both on this board and outside of it. I would argue that this isn't so much morality as a (quasi-)legal technicality. It's the rare war where historians go back and question tihe morality of the beginning of the war. I mean, which party was immoral to start the Seven Years War? The war of Spanish Succession? The Franco-Prussian war? I would argue that the morality of the war is usually judged not on its instigation but rather on its conduct and, even more importantly, on the justice of its outcome. The American Civil War was won by an aggressive invader against a political entity that had lawfully seceded by most understandings of the constitution and certainly within the spirit of social contract theory; conducted in a manner that did great damage to the civilian population; yet it is considered one of the most morally justified wars in human history because it was fought and successfully extended human liberty. Granted there is the thin sliver of Sumter to justify the war from the northern end, but I would say that's pretty slim justification for one of the bloodiest wars in history, and nobody would say that was the true cause. Nor should they.

To argue that a nation must be attacked by another nation before it can enter a war is to say that the American participation in the European theater of World War II was completely unjustified. And the Revolutionary War started with an argument over taxation.

So I will wait to see the conduct and the outcome of the war before I judge its morality.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Answer the Question? Can You Do That???

Fixed your post.

"Allowed the inspectors to get kicked out"....maybe you should have a lie down, tuna.

As far as what deviltry Saddam has been up to since then - maybe we should let Dr. Blix tell us, hm?

 

Is there a war going on? Gee I must have missed something. Last time I checked, there wasnt any war happening...
What exactly has George Bush done to Iraq?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=iraq

 

i like how yahoo doesn't feel the need to use the word "reportedly" anymore.

and don't get all excited over the no-fly zone retaliations. they've been going on forever. it's not "new news"

 

no, they just clearly started the article with "Iraq said..." so I can see how you'd be confused.

 

reportedly

still sticking by my guns until i see 6 dead iraqi's with us bomb fragments sticking out of them. and i can see how you'd be stupid enough to believe anything coming out of iraq these days.

 

So they should use "reportedly" whenever Bush says something, right?

You can believe the Iraqis or not, but the story was fairly reported. To argue otherwise is simply a case of looking for something to blame on the media.

 

unless you have documented evidence it should be reportedly.

what's the point of posting a link to a news story like that other than looking for something to blame on the US military?

i found a news story that should better suit you SoFla http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/news/index.cfm?instanceid=57132
who would have thought hitlers head would be in such good shape either?

 

Documented evidence of what?!??! Documented evidence that shows that Iraq actually said that?

As I said, you can either decide that Iraq told the truth (that there were six dead people from the bombings) or you can decide that Iraq did not tell the truth. The fact that they said something is newsworthy, which was reported on.

You're making yourself look silly.

 

i was talking about the article in reference to the reportedly article.

what "iraq" says isn't worth shite anymore. unless it was some other "iraq" that was feeding us all those lies the last 13 years.

the way you posted it in reference to father ted's comments was in the context of bush making a act of agression in reference to the percieved oncoming war. the article clearly states that the actions (which are documented) were as a result of no-fly zone indeiscretions.