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

[Travis]

Please study history, then

U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support;
U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies;
Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meeting with Saddam

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

See the highlighted bit? When did the majority of Saddam's crimes happen?

Not that it matters. You can provide someone with assistance then decide that person is too heinous to be your ally.

 

[Watanabe]

See the highlighted bit? When did the majority of Saddam's crimes happen?

Reprisal Against Dujail
On July 8, 1982, Saddam Hussein was visiting the town of Dujail (50 miles north of Baghdad) when a group of Dawa militants shot at his motorcade. In reprisal for this assassination attempt, the entire town was punished. More than 140 fighting-age men were apprehended and never heard from again. Approximately 1,500 other townspeople, including children, were rounded up and taken to prison, where many were tortured. After a year or more in prison, many were exiled to a southern desert camp. The town itself was destroyed; houses were bulldozed and orchards were demolished.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm

Not that it matters. You can provide someone with assistance then decide that person is too heinous to be your ally.

And then you become guilty of the crimes of your ally

 

[erwinl]

You like to play around, do not you?I have asked why the Swedisn Government did nothing more than a short mild statement of condemnation against the US when they invaded Iraq

No. I'd like to ask you to state what exactly you want the Swedish government to do.
Prosecute? Statement of condemnation?

What?

 

[Watanabe]

No. I'd like to ask you to state what exactly you want the Swedish government to do.
Prosecute? Statement of condemnation?

What?

Three posts above.

 

[erwinl]

Three posts above.

Stop diplomatic activity with the US, say GWB is a bad man and stop official visits to the US?

That's all? Nothing more?

A prosecution is off the table then?

 

[Border Reiver]

They need to have jurisdiction to severe military relationshiop with NATO?

Sweden is not, nor has it ever been, part of NATO.

Or to stop diplomatic activity with the US?

If you stop diplomatic activity with a country you lose the ability to influence said country by pretty much any means other than economic or military means. What essential economic resource does Sweden control that is vital to US interests and that they cannot get readily from anywhere else? (I will presume that you are not advocating that Sweden engage in military action against the US)

Or to say that GWB is a bad person?

Words, not backed by action, are just words. And, given that the US people often call him much worse than a "bad person" doing so would accomplish what?

Or to stop official visits to the US?

That would be part of stopping diplomatic activity - and it would accomplish what?

 

[Crossbow]

I read it again, and stand by my statement. You said George Bush can be charged for launching a "war of aggression".

Perhaps you worded it poorly if you now apparently don't think he can be?

Well then your statement clearly shows that you did not actually read my statement. Because if you actually read my statement, then you would soon see that you are quite incorrect.

 

[WildCat]

Well then your statement clearly shows that you did not actually read my statement. Because if you actually read my statement, then you would soon see that you are quite incorrect.

Let's recap! I'll hilite the part you appear to have forgot having written:

'Travis' you may not be aware of this fact, but since the USA has signed on to various UN Charters/Treaties which, among other things, forbid member states from engaging in wars of agression and torture. Therefore, since the Iraq War can be considered to be a war of agression by the USA and things like waterboarding can be considered to be torture which was done by the USA, therefore the responsible parties (like George W. Bush and his various flunkies) can be prosecuted accordingly.

However, I seriously doubt that such a thing will ever happen.



There were many other ways of dealing with Saddam besides going to war. However, George Bush and the pro-war people were far too stupid to use them.

Yep, my reading comprehension is just fine thank you.

 

[BStrong]

They need to have jurisdiction to severe military relationshiop with NATO?
Or to stop diplomatic activity with the US?
Or to say that GWB is a bad person?
Or to stop official visits to the US?

Title of your op:

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

I was keeping on point with your question.

Really W, your goalposts move like they have happy feet.

 

[The Don]

Because it caused the unnecessary deaths of 200000+ people, if this is not enough for you.
And I believe all the people (including myself, unfortunately) who stayed silent at that time are co-responsible of those deaths.
At least, I have learned the lesson and changed, some other people as I can see did not learn. And still remain guilty

And as others have pointed out, had Saddam Hussein stayed in power the number is almost certain to have been far higher.

 

[Crossbow]

Let's recap! I'll hilite the part you appear to have forgot having written:

Thanks for the reposting and I can assure you that I have not forgotten it.

Yep, my reading comprehension is just fine thank you.

On the contrary! It is quite evident that your reading comprehension is rather poor.

Just because you claim to have reading comprehension, that does not mean that you actually comprehend what you are reading.
Just because you quote something someone has said, does not mean that you have actually paid attention to what that someone has said.
Just because you say that you have read something that someone has written, that does not mean that you have actually read that something which someone has written.

To be specific, in the post you have now quoted twice and which has you have found so very vexing.

I did say that George W. Bush and his varioius flunkies could be prosecuted for war crimes. And in the very next sentence, I went on to say that I seriously doubted that George W. Bush and his various flunkies would ever be prosecuted for war crimes.

Therefore, if your reading comprehension skills are as good as you claim them to be, then you should be able to understand the two above sentences.

 

[Travis]

Reprisal Against Dujail
On July 8, 1982, Saddam Hussein was visiting the town of Dujail (50 miles north of Baghdad) when a group of Dawa militants shot at his motorcade. In reprisal for this assassination attempt, the entire town was punished. More than 140 fighting-age men were apprehended and never heard from again. Approximately 1,500 other townspeople, including children, were rounded up and taken to prison, where many were tortured. After a year or more in prison, many were exiled to a southern desert camp. The town itself was destroyed; houses were bulldozed and orchards were demolished.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm

And this is a person you don't think should have been removed from power?

And then you become guilty of the crimes of your ally

Finland was an ally of Nazi Germany. Was Finland guilty of all Nazi crimes?

Title of your op:

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

I was keeping on point with your question.

Really W, your goalposts move like they have happy feet.

Technically it was my OP. Granted I was trying to divine his objection to Sweden prosecuting an accused rapist. But it was still mine.

 

[Watanabe]

And as others have pointed out, had Saddam Hussein stayed in power the number is almost certain to have been far higher.

No evidence whatsoever.
Curious sentence for a forum of skeptics

Let alone that the US once again SUPPORTED Saddam when he was killing people

 

[Watanabe]

And this is a person you don't think should have been removed from power?

Maybe in 1982 or in the early 80s, when you were supporting him

Finland was an ally of Nazi Germany. Was Finland guilty of all Nazi crimes?

Corresponsible
Japan too

 

[The Don]

No evidence whatsoever.
Curious sentence for a forum of skeptics

Let alone that the US once again SUPPORTED Saddam when he was killing people

Well, unless you ignore his kill rate from 1990 onwards when the US was most certainly not supporting him...

It's been explained a number of times why the US chose to support what they believed to be the lesser monster (Saddam) against the greater monster (Iran) during the Iran/Iraq war and the thought process behind it.

 

[Watanabe]

Well, unless you ignore his kill rate from 1990 onwards when the US was most certainly not supporting him...

It's been explained a number of times why the US chose to support what they believed to be the lesser monster (Saddam) against the greater monster (Iran) during the Iran/Iraq war and the thought process behind it.

And as explained to you Iran was in no way the "greater monster" in the 80s or later, as Iran never invaded any country (Iraq did) and never promoted genocide
Saddam did

 

[Watanabe]

Double

 

[Watanabe]

Sweden is not, nor has it ever been, part of NATO.

Never said that Sweden was

If you stop diplomatic activity with a country you lose the ability to influence said country by pretty much any means other than economic or military means. What essential economic resource does Sweden control that is vital to US interests and that they cannot get readily from anywhere else? (I will presume that you are not advocating that Sweden engage in military action against the US)

Dunno.
Still they did not stop diplomatic activity

Words, not backed by action, are just words. And, given that the US people often call him much worse than a "bad person" doing so would accomplish what?

It would be a denounce

That would be part of stopping diplomatic activity - and it would accomplish what?

Maybe nothing
But they would not be accomplice
Not doing this, they became complice
Therefore, their behaviour is suspect

 

[Watanabe]

Stop diplomatic activity with the US, say GWB is a bad man and stop official visits to the US?

That's all? Nothing more?

A prosecution is off the table then?

If you have better idea, please propose

 

[Watanabe]

Therefore, if your reading comprehension skills are as good as you claim them to be, then you should be able to understand the two above sentences.

Unless he do not want to understand the two above sentences