Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time running [ran] out for Hussein

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by figo
    was a jewish-german culpable for hitler?
    is an afghani looking down the barrel of a taliban gun culpable for the ttaliban?
    is mike tyson culpable for bush? and vise versa?
    is gh culpable for this article here...
    enough said.
    Agree completely.
    "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
    by Thomas Henry Huxley

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by figo
      was a jewish-german culpable for hitler?
      is an afghani looking down the barrel of a taliban gun culpable for the ttaliban?
      is mike tyson culpable for bush? and vise versa?
      is gh culpable for this article here...
      enough said.
      I believe that in order for a person not to have any culpability for what his or her government does, they would have to lose their right to vote and lose their right to leave the country. I would be curious to know the reaction of Germany's Jewish community in 1933 when Hitler was first elected and had not yet consolodated his powers.

      Comment


      • #63
        When Alec Baldwin reneged on his promise to leave the country if Bush was re-elected, he became somewhat culpable for all of Bush's atrocities.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by jazzcyclist
          When Alec Baldwin reneged on his promise to leave the country if Bush was re-elected, he became somewhat culpable for all of Bush's atrocities.
          Since Bush obviously blew up the levees in NO, steered Katrina toward the city, had the WTC destroyed, had Cheney shoot his wife, Laura, in the leg, etc., you certainly have a point. And don't forget that his pop and Nixon had JFK offed. Don't forget that one.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by jazzcyclist
            Originally posted by SQUACKEE
            Originally posted by guru
            Execution now set for 6:00 AM Saturday Baghdad Time(10:00 PM Friday EST). Sorry no link available as of this post.
            Maybe the only way to keep the "peace" in Iraq was to gas Kurdish children and feed people into wood chippers. And have woman raped in front of their husbands. Maybe so, but I only hope the victims rest easier after this monster is silenced forever.
            SQUACKEE, you obviously aren't familiar with all of the events that led up to and followed the gassing of the Kurds. If you did, you would understand that the US doesn't have the moral authority to condemn Saddam for that act.
            I never mentioned the US. I do believe I have the moral authority to condem gassing children. If i dont please inform me why not?
            phsstt!

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by gm
              Originally posted by jazzcyclist
              When Alec Baldwin reneged on his promise to leave the country if Bush was re-elected, he became somewhat culpable for all of Bush's atrocities.
              Since Bush obviously blew up the levees in NO, steered Katrina toward the city, had the WTC destroyed, had Cheney shoot his wife, Laura, in the leg, etc., you certainly have a point. And don't forget that his pop and Nixon had JFK offed. Don't forget that one.
              Bush also spent Billions and billions of taxpayers money blowing up Iraqy citizens for oil when he could have just bought the oil. What a waste. The only way to make the Iraqy thing worth while is to take over the country and take the oil. Im assuming thats the plan. Nothin else makes $ense.
              phsstt!

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by jazzcyclist
                Originally posted by figo
                was a jewish-german culpable for hitler?
                is an afghani looking down the barrel of a taliban gun culpable for the ttaliban?
                is mike tyson culpable for bush? and vise versa?
                is gh culpable for this article here...
                enough said.
                I believe that in order for a person not to have any culpability for what his or her government does, they would have to lose their right to vote and lose their right to leave the country. I would be curious to know the reaction of Germany's Jewish community in 1933 when Hitler was first elected and had not yet consolodated his powers.
                I think I have a partial answer to this question. Hitler's platform (Mein Kampf) was so virulently antisemitic that the Germany's Jews knew he meant trouble. Virtually nobody, however anticipated the extent of the "final solution". I am sure there were some Jews that wanted to do some profiteering that misfired, but I believe, you could pretty much count them on your fingers.
                "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                by Thomas Henry Huxley

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by SQUACKEE
                  I never mentioned the US. I do believe I have the moral authority to condem gassing children. If i dont please inform me why not?
                  Of course you have that moral authority, assuming you felt that way at the time these incidents happened, since you're not the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, or any other high level representative of the US. Tim Russert once asked Donald Rumsfeld if he knew about Saddam's mass graves, torture chambers and other brutalities at the time he was meeting with him the 1980's to provide him with conventional and unconventional weapons and he said "yes". So if he knew, the US government knew, which would mean that no current high level government official has the moral authority to condemn these acts unless he or she is also willing to discuss US culpablitiy in these acts.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
                    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
                    I never mentioned the US. I do believe I have the moral authority to condem gassing children. If i dont please inform me why not?
                    Of course you have that moral authority, assuming you felt that way at the time these incidents happened, since you're not the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, or any other high level representative of the US. Tim Russert once asked Donald Rumsfeld if he knew about Saddam's mass graves, torture chambers and other brutalities at the time he was meeting with him the 1980's to provide him with conventional and unconventional weapons and he said "yes". So if he knew, the US government knew, which would mean that no current high level government official has the moral authority to condemn these acts unless he or she is also willing to discuss US culpablitiy in these acts.
                    Of course they knew. The brutal truth of politics is sometimes you have to choose between lesser evils. The US got real cozy with Stalin (a monster who is said to be responsible for millions of political murders in his own country) to defeat Hitler. And so it goes.
                    phsstt!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by SQUACKEE
                      Of course they knew. The brutal truth of politics is sometimes you have to choose between lesser evils. The US got real cozy with Stalin (a monster who is said to be responsible for millions of political murders in his own country) to defeat Hitler. And so it goes.
                      Sometimes you do, but most times you don't have to chose between lesser evils, especially when your survival isn't at stake. A widely known fact is that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds back in the 1980's in order to squash a rebellion, and in the process killed 4000 civilians. A little known fact is that when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds, U.N. resolutions were proposed that would have brought condemnation and perhaps even sanctions against Iraq. These resolutions were widely supported by Europe, including the U.K., France and Germany, Saddam's neighbors, including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and most of the rest of the international community. But there was one, and only one, nation that opposed this resolution and used its U.N. veto to block it. That nation was the United States of America whose sitting President was Ronald Reagan. So the question is this: If Saddam's atrocities did not even warrant a U.N. condemnation at the time they happened, how do they justify an unprovoked, preemptive war and hanging 15 years after the fact? Why did the Europeans have the moral clarity to put sanctions on Saddam and not the so-called "shining city on a hill"?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by jazzcyclist
                        Why did the Europeans have the moral clarity to put sanctions on Saddam and not the so-called "shining city on a hill"?
                        I think the answer to that is rather obvious . . .

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Hussein:s was the first, more follow:

                          http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X