This is the guy who prosecuted the nuremberg war crimes
in 1946. He is almost 90 and says, under the war crimes
statues that we used for the prosecution of Hitlers henchmen,
both saddam and BUSH lite should be prosecuted for war crimes.
If we can prosecute Saddam under war crimes acts, then the
village idiot MUST also be prosecuted. One is no different then
another because both used the same thing, proactive use
of violence to invade other countries. This is the same way
we prosecuted hitler’s henchmen. If our president
can be prosecuted for war crimes, he should and must
be impeached.
Peter, the question that comes to mind is “Why didn’t the UN prosecute, then?” It clearly had no intention of doing so. I’m not sure how much meaning an appeal to the authority of the UN has in this context. I’m not sure how much meaning it would have in any event. Let’s not be naive about the UN, please. It is not exactly a temple of Truth.
You appeal to principle and not that which is political. The “fix is in”, and it always has been. We aren’t governed by principle. We are governed by political expediancy.
faust: Peter, the question that comes to mind is “Why didn’t the UN prosecute, then?” It clearly had no intention of doing so. I’m not sure how much meaning an appeal to the authority of the UN has in this context. I’m not sure how much meaning it would have in any event. Let’s not be naive about the UN, please. It is not exactly a temple of Truth."
K: I am not being naive about the UN. I understand its limitations.
But it is not about the UN. It is about the idea that the village
idiot actions constitute war crimes as we understood and prosecuted
them in the case of hitler’s henchmen and are currently doing
in the case of saddam. If it applies to one, then it must apply
to the village idiot for the same reason/reasons. I know bush lite
will never be tried, (although I admit it is one of my favorite fantasy’s
right after the blond twin girls on a trampoline)but what have i said,
the battle is not political, but philosophical. The battle is within us.
But you can’t have it both ways, Peter. You claim that Bush should be prosecuted “because this guy says so”. Well, then you can’t consistently claim that the basis of his claim doesn’t matter. I realise that your sole purpose here is to state that Bush is a bad guy, as many ways a spossible. The trouble is that there aren’t unlimited ways to say that, and those that reasonably exist are more than adequate.
tentative:
You appeal to principle and not that which is political. The “fix is in”, and it always has been. We aren’t governed by principle. We are governed by political expediency."
K: You missed money. We are governed by money.
And that is wrong. It is not a government of the money,
for the money, by the money.
It is about people.
And that gets lost today.
I am not interested in political expediency, but I am
interested in doing the right thing and doing the right
thing for the right reason.
Having read most of peters threads i dont think he likes Bush very much…or would that be an understatement. However as Faust stated there are so many ways of telling the world that Bush is a bad guy. After reading about how you hate him on nearly every post we read then I think we get the idea. Why not post something about how a President actually did some good? ( Any President will do).