How can Sweden fairly prosecute Assange when they don't prosecute GW Bush?

[Travis]

Well, if the various dimwitted yokes were not so terribly dimwitted, then they would already know the answers to that question.

However, I will do my best to expunge your ignorance.

First, I do not know of any other options that would have removed Saddam from power in Iraq. Furthermore, I did not really care if Saddam stayed in power or not.

Well then we are already at an impasse as I really did care about removing him from power. I cared a lot about this. So much so I was writing congressmen about it.

However, what I (and many, many others) did care about, was keeping Saddam contained in Iraq. The pre-war sanctions were doing an excellent job of keeping him in his own country as well as building the international cooperation which would be needed to properly handle a post-Saddam Iraq.

So, just screw the poor people in Iraq? Sorry folks you have to deal with the death squads all on your own!

Second, as for transforming Iraq into a democracy, that has not been done yet. And I doubt that such a thing will happen for quite some time.

True.

But since you do not know how to radically change radically change the population of an entire nation into a new direction in a short time, then I will tell you how such a thing is done. What needs to happen is to completely occupy that nation so that the population is forced to accept the designated direction. And again, such an occupation has not been done in Iraq.

Also true.

Belgium was liberated from an outside aggressor, the Nazis
Iraq was not liberated from an outsider aggressor

Iraq was liberated from an internal aggressor. What is the difference?

Why is it alright to stop someone from mass murdering civilians if they are from another country but we cannot if the person doing the mass murdering is from that nation?

If the US were sodedicated to liberating the world from evil Saddam, why were they supporting him 20 years before?

We've gone over this time and time again.

It doesn't matter. It just doesn't.

Am I obligated to stick with a woman just because she was my girlfriend once? Do I have to stay with her if she turns out to be a psychopath that murders puppies for fun?

Allying yourself to someone does not obligate you to support that individual for all time and eternity.

You mean the same citizens that were suffering when the US was supporting that genocidal madman?

Yeah, the same ones.

Ah,. it is the timing
You support dictators in even years and remove them in odd years..

No, you remove them when the national will is there to support it.

In 1999 people were more concerned with a blonde pop star than with Saddam. In 2003 that was different.

That's the difference.

 

[Travis]

Why do I get this feeling that this is just becoming a shouting match between two well intentioned extremists?

 

[The Don]

Is Assange the only accused rapist this applies to or is Sweden unable to prosecute any accused rapists until they have sufficient international morality points by this arbitrary standard?

I think the logic is that the only reason that Sweden have chosen to prosecute Assange is to punish him for his Wikileaks activities and not because he may have sexually assaulted two women. There's also a suggestion that as soon as he sets foot in Sweden he will be whisked off to the United States.

So following that "logic" Sweden can prosecute anyone for rape so long as they aren't associated with Wikileaks or any other body which exposes the evils of American Imperialism.

 

[The Don]

Why do I get this feeling that this is just becoming a shouting match between two well intentioned extremists?

Oh, I'm not sure you're well intentioned

 

[Crossbow]

Well then we are already at an impasse as I really did care about removing him from power. I cared a lot about this. So much so I was writing congressmen about it.

Good for you then! I am glad that you got involved.

So, just screw the poor people in Iraq? Sorry folks you have to deal with the death squads all on your own!

Sorry, but I find that sentiment to be quite false. After all, the USA killed tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands or Iraqis during the stupid, idotic war. Also, the war got the USA involved with numerous war crimes that would not have occurred otherwise.

So if you are really so concerned about the Iraqis, then waging war against them is very counter-productive.

True.

Thanks for admitting the obvious.

Also true.

Thanks again for admitting the obvious.

Iraq was liberated from an internal aggressor. What is the difference?

Why is it alright to stop someone from mass murdering civilians if they are from another country but we cannot if the person doing the mass murdering is from that nation?

Do you really have to ask that?

If making Iraq a better place was the actual aim of the war, then I expect that many more people (including myself) would have supported the war. But instead, the often stated war aim were supposed Iraqi WMDs.

... snipped for relevance ...

 

[trustbutverify]

In this case, it is deliberate trolling. I can say for sure

How so?

 

[trustbutverify]

Is Assange the only accused rapist this applies to or is Sweden unable to prosecute any accused rapists until they have sufficient international morality points by this arbitrary standard?

Interesting question.

 

[Watanabe]

In the Iran/Iraq war, the U.S. determined that Iran was "worse" than Iraq (what with it being an Islamic Theocracy and because it had recently held more than a hundred US diplomatic staff hostage).

20 years later the US determined that Saddam needed to be deposed (probably because of the threat he now posed to US allies like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) and used WMD as the means to do so.

Let alone the fact that it is nowhere written that an Islamic Theocracy is worse than a dictatorship and that the whole WMDs thing was a lie, it looks to me that the US bases their consideration not on a careful reading of human rights but on their own political convenience

Maybe in 1982 they felt that Iraq under Saddam was preferable to Iraq under whoever the Iranians would put in power.

In 2003 they felt that Iraq under Saddam was much worse than Iraq under whoever the US would put in power.

See above

 

[Watanabe]

Is Assange the only accused rapist this applies to or is Sweden unable to prosecute any accused rapists until they have sufficient international morality points by this arbitrary standard?

Assange and all the other alleged rapists who are responsible of one of the biggest leak of intelligence in history

 

[Watanabe]

Iraq was liberated from an internal aggressor. What is the difference?

I heve never heard the words "internal aggressor"
Is the King of Saudi Arabia also an internal aggressor?

Why is it alright to stop someone from mass murdering civilians if they are from another country but we cannot if the person doing the mass murdering is from that nation?

Because it is not the same thing and maybe because you supported that person when it was convenient to some US people

We've gone over this time and time again.

It doesn't matter. It just doesn't.

Am I obligated to stick with a woman just because she was my girlfriend once? Do I have to stay with her if she turns out to be a psychopath that murders puppies for fun?

Allying yourself to someone does not obligate you to support that individual for all time and eternity.

You mean that Saddam was not a psychopath when he was murderning Kurds with gas in the 80s?
Or maybe the CIA did not know?

Yeah, the same ones..

No, you remove them when the national will is there to support it.

In 1999 people were more concerned with a blonde pop star than with Saddam. In 2003 that was different.

That's the difference.

I see
If the US people like to support a bloody dictator or remove it, both are OK if the US people are happy with either options.

 

[Spindrift]

Let alone the fact that it is nowhere written that an Islamic Theocracy is worse than a dictatorship and that the whole WMDs thing was a lie, it looks to me that the US bases their consideration not on a careful reading of human rights but on their own political convenience



See above

It is written:

An Islamic Theocracy is worse than a dictatorship.

 

[Chaos]

Let alone the fact that it is nowhere written that an Islamic Theocracy is worse than a dictatorship and that the whole WMDs thing was a lie, it looks to me that the US bases their consideration not on a careful reading of human rights but on their own political convenience.

Dude, if you gave a rat´s ass about human rights, the US would be about #87 on your list of countries to complain about.

Why aren´t you constantly denouncing any of the following countries for their disregard for human rights?

People´s Republic of China
Democratic People´s Republic of Korea
Iran
Pakistan
Egypt
Syria
Cuba
Venezuela
Vietnam
Cambodia
Russia
Belarus
Uzbekhistan
Armenia
Aserbaijan
Georgia
Ukraine
Turkey

So? Why not? What´s keeping you? Why whine constantly about how Assange is treated when they are millions of innocents being imprisoned, tortured or murdered by far worse regime?

 

[Crossbow]

The sad fact is that there are millions, and probably billions, of people living under horrible rulers and governments. However, the USA simply does not have the resources to set the world to rights.

Therefore, often the best thing that the USA can do is watch, wait, set a good example, and be ready to help out when the time is right.

 

[Mojo]

Dude, if you gave a rat´s ass about human rights, the US would be about #87 on your list of countries to complain about.

Why aren´t you constantly denouncing any of the following countries for their disregard for human rights?

People´s Republic of China
Democratic People´s Republic of Korea
Iran
Pakistan
Egypt
Syria
Cuba
Venezuela
Vietnam
Cambodia
Russia
Belarus
Uzbekhistan
Armenia
Aserbaijan
Georgia
Ukraine
Turkey

So? Why not? What´s keeping you? Why whine constantly about how Assange is treated when they are millions of innocents being imprisoned, tortured or murdered by far worse regime?

By Watanabe's own argument, he has no right to complain about the Assange case until he has denounced all these countries, and any others that anybody arbitrarily decides need denouncing.

 

[Spindrift]

Dude, if you gave a rat´s ass about human rights, the US would be about #87 on your list of countries to complain about.

Why aren´t you constantly denouncing any of the following countries for their disregard for human rights?

People´s Republic of China
Democratic People´s Republic of Korea
Iran
Pakistan
Egypt
Syria
Cuba
Venezuela
Vietnam
Cambodia
Russia
Belarus
Uzbekhistan
Armenia
Aserbaijan
Georgia
Ukraine
Turkey

So? Why not? What´s keeping you? Why whine constantly about how Assange is treated when they are millions of innocents being imprisoned, tortured or murdered by far worse regime?

By Watanabe logic as long as America does anything bad, he can ignore all those other countries because America is held up as a good place by some so until the USA is truly perfect all the other countries get a pass.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Assange and all the other alleged rapists who are responsible of one of the biggest leak of intelligence in history

Are you serious? Suppose I were responsible for the recent reported leak of U.S. defense codes to China, then shot up a school. Could I not be tried for the school shooting because I had contributed to an intelligence leak?

If Assange committed rape, he needs to be tried for it regardless of whatever else anyone may think he has or has not done.

Your logic is seriously warped.

 

[Watanabe]

Dude, if you gave a rat´s ass about human rights, the US would be about #87 on your list of countries to complain about.

Why aren´t you constantly denouncing any of the following countries for their disregard for human rights?

People´s Republic of China
Democratic People´s Republic of Korea
Iran
Pakistan
Egypt
Syria
Cuba
Venezuela
Vietnam
Cambodia
Russia
Belarus
Uzbekhistan
Armenia
Aserbaijan
Georgia
Ukraine
Turkey

So? Why not? What´s keeping you? Why whine constantly about how Assange is treated when they are millions of innocents being imprisoned, tortured or murdered by far worse regime?

Go start strawmen and offtopics somewhere else, would you?
Already received a pack of yellow cards.

Oh..
Since there are a lot of rapists in the world, please ask the Sween Government to stop prosecuting Assange..

The sad fact is that there are millions, and probably billions, of people living under horrible rulers and governments. However, the USA simply does not have the resources to set the world to rights.

Therefore, often the best thing that the USA can do is watch, wait, set a good example, and be ready to help out when the time is right.

This guy is great!!
I love him !!

 

[Watanabe]

Are you serious? Suppose I were responsible for the recent reported leak of U.S. defense codes to China, then shot up a school. Could I not be tried for the school shooting because I had contributed to an intelligence leak?

If Assange committed rape, he needs to be tried for it regardless of whatever else anyone may think he has or has not done.

Your logic is seriously warped.

Maybe your ability to read English is warped
I have never said this
Of course Assange should be prosecuted if there s enough evidence taht he may have committed crimes
However, the fact that Sweden did nothing (almost) against Bush and spends so much energy for Assange is reason to suspect that the whole thing may just be political prosecution

 

[Chaos]

It´s amazing how Watanabe´s "logic" can be used to support completely contradictory demands.

By Watanabe's own argument, he has no right to complain about the Assange case until he has denounced all these countries, and any others that anybody arbitrarily decides need denouncing.

That list contained 18 countries, roughly 10% of all countries in the world, and it took me about a minute to come up with it. Watanabe has no excuse.

For that matter, I´ve personally met people from 13 of these countries who have suffered human rights violations (my favorite is the one who lost his seat in parliament for "radically democratic statements") serious to each warrant their own thread of serious whining.

By Watanabe logic as long as America does anything bad, he can ignore all those other countries because America is held up as a good place by some so until the USA is truly perfect all the other countries get a pass.

Bah. America is held up as a good place by its supporters only. The same goes for the Castro brothers´ Cuba (there are actually several pro-Castro "Cuban-German friendship networks" here in Germany). So by the same logic there is no excuse for whining about the US as long as Cuba is still a dictatorship.

 

[Watanabe]

By Watanabe logic as long as America does anything bad, he can ignore all those other countries because America is held up as a good place by some so until the USA is truly perfect all the other countries get a pass.

Why do people like you keep lying and misrepresenting?