• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Noztradamus said:
Thank you for explaining

Saved me from making a "Just who are you, and what have you done with Watanabe" post



Not to me. see above. I honestly believed there had been an epiphany of rationality.
Click to expand...

You, sir, owe me a new keyboard.
I think I can clean the screen though. :)
 
Watanabe, in order to actually have a discussion here the topic from the OP was: "How can Sweden farily prosecute Assange, when they don't prosecute GW Bush?"

Not the amorality of international relations.

So, in order to demonstrate that Sweden is being unfair in its prosecution of Assange you would need to show us evidence that Sweden has either been in the practice of

a. Starting politically motivated trials;
b. Not following it's established rules of court, or showing that guilt or innocence is pre-determined in Swedish courts;
c. That the decision not to prosecute GWB is motivated by partisan political machinactions (a prosecution of another head of state by Sweden for allegedly starting a war of agression would be a good start).

You digression into the morality of decisions made over 30 years ago, and using your current personal interpretation of what is moral to engage in namecalling, and to assume that the decision makers then have the same information that they do now takes the discussion further afield.

Based on your logic "Sweden can't try Assange fairly because they did not also try GWB" it is also plausible to argue that they cannot try Assange, because they did not prosecute Charles Taylor, or Karadzic.

And besides, since Sweden didn't condemn Adolph Hitler and the excesses of Nazi Germany to the extent you wish, I'm certain that somehow this prevents them from criticizing the US actions as much as you wish.
 
Is Sweden's supposed inability to prosecute fairly limited to Assange only?

Is there an implied inability to fairly prosecute others because Sweden did not prosecute any other world leaders you think committed crimes? If so, can you list those other leaders?
 
Watanabe said:
You fail to see how apologizing for having helped slaughter some thousands of innocents has to do with morality?

Wow..
Click to expand...

Yes. Apologies are meaningless. Anyone can apologize.

"I apologize for the slaughter of the Emphremine Species on planet Gillessen 137."

See. Meaningless. Just words.


If you are really sorry you'll demonstrate it through actions.
 
Travis said:
Yes. Apologies are meaningless. Anyone can apologize.

"I apologize for the slaughter of the Emphremine Species on planet Gillessen 137."

See. Meaningless. Just words.


If you are really sorry you'll demonstrate it through actions.
Click to expand...

And how the US demonstrated it through actions?
 
Watanabe said:
Make a public statement that GWB is guilty (at least, freom a moral point of view) of some 200000+ deaths
Click to expand...

Two questions for you.

1. Where do you get that number? Has US troops killed 200 000+ civilians in Iraq during the war, or do you count every civilian loss in the conflict, including the numerous terrorist attacks by foreign and national insurgents?

2. Should we, to be consistent, make a public statement that every nation in the UN that supported the pre-war Iraq sanctions is guilty of some 200 000-500 000 infant deaths alone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Estimates_of_deaths_due_to_sanctions
 
Watanabe said:
Make a public statement that GWB is guilty (at least, freom a moral point of view) of some 200000+ deaths
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. Not everyone else's opinion. Once you understand that your opinion ≠ everyone else's opinion then the whole issue becomes a simple one.
 
eirik said:
Two questions for you.

1. Where do you get that number? Has US troops killed 200 000+ civilians in Iraq during the war, or do you count every civilian loss in the conflict, including the numerous terrorist attacks by foreign and national insurgents?
Click to expand...

I never said that GWB is directly guilty of

eirik said:
2. Should we, to be consistent, make a public statement that every nation in the UN that supported the pre-war Iraq sanctions is guilty of some 200 000-500 000 infant deaths alone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Estimates_of_deaths_due_to_sanctions
Click to expand...

This is a separate issue
 
Watanabe said:
Sweden is collaborating with Nato. Period.
Click to expand...

Why should Sweden stop the cooperation with NATO in relation to Iraq?

NATO was not part of the Iraq invasion.

They did assist in "helping Iraq create effective armed forces and, ultimately, provide for its own security by establishing the NATO Training Mission-Iraq (NTM-I) in 2004." All sanctioned by UN resolutions. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_51978.htm
 
eirik said:
Why should Sweden stop the cooperation with NATO in relation to Iraq?

NATO was not part of the Iraq invasion.

They did assist in "helping Iraq create effective armed forces and, ultimately, provide for its own security by establishing the NATO Training Mission-Iraq (NTM-I) in 2004." All sanctioned by UN resolutions. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_51978.htm
Click to expand...

So..

erwinl said:
That's not an answer to Eiriks question. He just asked you to explain how you came to the number of 200.000 deaths.
Click to expand...

Even children know this
 
Watanabe said:
This is a separate issue
Click to expand...

No, it is the same issue. If you want to establish an action as immoral (here the war), you have to establish an alternativ action that is more preferable.

Sanctions were held up as the only realistic peaceful alternativ to war - from stopping Saddam murdering and torturing his own and foreign citicens. That's why they were imposed by the UN.

The sanctions were especially harmful to Iraqi civilians, while Saddam was seemingly unaffected by them. They lasted for about 13 years, and is reported to have caused about 300 000-500 000 infant/child deaths alone.(some say over a million, but that is not the consensus AFAI can tell) I could not find numbers for adults. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Estimates_of_deaths_due_to_sanctions


In light of this, the sanctions killed more people each year than the Iraqi war, even by the lowest estimates. 23 076>20 000 . (if we count the war from 2003-2013, but I have no idea how you got the number 200 000, let alone accounted for the moral implications that most deaths probably are from terrorist attacks from foreign and nationals, amongst others, Iranian and Syrian terrorists).

And even worse: Sanctions demonstrably didn't work. As someone said, the sanctions were a new Iraq war perpetrated to the Iraqi people every year.
 
eirik said:
No, it is the same issue. If you want to establish an action as immoral (here the war), you have to establish an alternativ action that is more preferable.

Sanctions were held up as the only realistic peaceful alternativ to war - from stopping Saddam murdering and torturing his own and foreign citicens. That's why they were imposed by the UN.

The sanctions were especially harmful to Iraqi civilians, while Saddam was seemingly unaffected by them. They lasted for about 13 years, and is reported to have caused about 300 000-500 000 infant/child deaths alone.(some say over a million, but that is not the consensus AFAI can tell) I could not find numbers for adults. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Estimates_of_deaths_due_to_sanctions


In light of this, the sanctions killed more people each year than the Iraqi war, even by the lowest estimates. 23 076>20 000 . (if we count the war from 2003-2013, but I have no idea how you got the number 200 000, let alone accounted for the moral implications that most deaths probably are from terrorist attacks from foreign and nationals, amongst others, Iranian and Syrian terrorists).

And even worse: Sanctions demonstrably didn't work. As someone said, the sanctions were a new Iraq war perpetrated to the Iraqi people every year.
Click to expand...

Two bads do not make one good.
If you say that sanctions are bad, this does not make the alternative of war good.
 
Watanabe said:
Two bads do not make one good.
If you say that sanctions are bad, this does not make the alternative of war good.
Click to expand...

So let's say sanctions are bad and should be lifted, where does that leave us ?

Oh yes, with Iraq in the hands of a maniac who has invaded two of his neighbours in the last 20 years and with the Kurds and Iraqi Shias being persecuted. Asking Saddam Hussein nicely to stop being such a meanie to his own people and neighbouring countries demonstrably did not work.
 
The Don said:
So let's say sanctions are bad and should be lifted, where does that leave us ?

Oh yes, with Iraq in the hands of a maniac who has invaded two of his neighbours in the last 20 years and with the Kurds and Iraqi Shias being persecuted. Asking Saddam Hussein nicely to stop being such a meanie to his own people and neighbouring countries demonstrably did not work.
Click to expand...

You keep forgetting the point that the US was supporting Saddam at the time
 
Watanabe said:
And how the US demonstrated it through actions?
Click to expand...

They redesigned their command and control systems so it wouldn't happen again. Something that cost quite a bit of money.

And it hasn't happened again now has it?




Look I am tired of chasing topics around in this thread. I've been trying to get you to understand a simple thing: you want Sweden to condemn GWB as a "bad man" and yet you fail to understand that is your opinion only.

I've been trying to get through to you that it is possible for someone to have been in favor of invading Iraq because they thought it would help the people of Iraq. Now maybe that was wrong. Maybe it didn't work. Maybe it was horribly misguided and doomed to fail. But trying to do the right thing and having it blow up in your face doesn't make you a bad person. It makes you human.

Until you can present evidence that GWB ordered the invasion with evil intentions for evil purposes your opinion of him as a "bad man" is yours and yours alone. I didn't care for him as a leader. I voted against him twice. But I don't make the mistake of assuming all that harbor different opinions than me do so because they are "bad".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom