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

[squealpiggy]

Yes. Apologies are meaningless. Anyone can apologize.

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

See. Meaningless. Just words.

Actually the Emphremine Hegemony are touched by your apology and have stood down their retaliatory invasion force with a view to opening new diplomatic channels. You just saved the world!

Even children know this

Perhaps you could find one then and ask them for the answer.

 

[Elizabeth I]

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".

QFT.

 

[Watanabe]

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?

And what about the victims?
Do they count as anything?

And you keep forgetting that by the mid-1980s such support had stopped.

Go tell this to the (tens of) thousands of victims

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.

It is my opinion only that GWB is an immoral man?
I do not think so

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.

I think any immoral or genocidal dictator in history (excluding maybe a few ones, but including Stalin, PolPot, Showa Tenno and Ceaucescu) can claim the same.
They were trying to do the right thing

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".

Until you can present that Stalin ordered to prosecute the kulaks with evil intentions..

 

[Border Reiver]

And what about the victims?
Do they count as anything?

Yes, they were the reason that these changes were made.

Go tell this to the (tens of) thousands of victims

Said support occurred nearly 30 years prior to GWB coming to power.
US support for Saddam that occurred prior to the atrocities you are complaining of, and occurred due to the whole "enemy of my enemy" factor AND was also a reason for the US to withdraw support.

Please explain how this rendered the later actions incorrect?

It is my opinion only that GWB is an immoral man?
I do not think so

No, It's not only you, but your opinion doesn't necessarily make it so.

I think any immoral or genocidal dictator in history (excluding maybe a few ones, but including Stalin, PolPot, Showa Tenno and Ceaucescu) can claim the same.
They were trying to do the right thing

If by "doing the right thing" you mean "doing whatever they felt was necessary to retain power" then you've pretty much hit on the difference between a dictator and an elected official from modern democracies, including GWB.

Until you can present that Stalin ordered to prosecute the kulaks with evil intentions..

Presumably you're going to somehow conflate GWB acting on his preferred version of the available information (which we have the documents for) with Stalin's direction to carry out acts of mass murder to do what exactly?

 

[Travis]

And what about the victims?
Do they count as anything?

Of course they do. The desire to not create any more victims was why the command and control computer was redesigned.

It is my opinion only that GWB is an immoral man?
I do not think so

You didn't come to this conclusion on your own?

I think any immoral or genocidal dictator in history (excluding maybe a few ones, but including Stalin, PolPot, Showa Tenno and Ceaucescu) can claim the same.
They were trying to do the right thing

Hmmm, what was the right thing Stalin was attempting to do? Or PolPot or any of them?

Now compare what they were attempting with what GWB attempted. You don't see a difference?

Until you can present that Stalin ordered to prosecute the kulaks with evil intentions..

There are many avenues of evidence that point to Stalin being a sociopath. What are the many avenues of evidence that point to GWB being a sociopath?

 

[The Don]

Resons 2 and 3 above are not necessarily proving anything
Quite the opposite

If you have any evidence that GWB went to war to free the Iraqi people please provide

Stop dodging and evading and please provide examples of the kind of evidence that would demonstrate that GWB did not go to war in order to please lobbies and hence get elected.

After all you asked for the evidence so you must have some idea as to the kind of evidence that might persuade you.


edited to add...


But.....

How does any of this relate to Sweden's ability to provide Julian Assange with a fair trial ?

 

[The Don]

Resons 2 and 3 above are not necessarily proving anything
Quite the opposite

If you have any evidence that GWB went to war to free the Iraqi people please provide

I am just providing some suggestions of reasons why GWB might have gone to war not just to play to certain lobbies and get himself re-elected.

Starting in order to punish Saddam for threatening GWB's rather would, if it were the case, be an excellent example of a reason to start the war for a reason other than playing to lobbies and getting re-elected, it would be revenge.


But.....

How does any of this relate to Sweden's ability to provide Julian Assange with a fair trial ?

 

[The Don]

<snip>

And still he twists and turns like a twisty-turny thing answer the questions:

Provide examples of the kind of evidence that would demonstrate that GWB did not go to war in order to please lobbies and hence get elected. After all you asked for the evidence so you must have some idea as to the kind of evidence that might persuade you.


and the old favourite...

How does any of this relate to Sweden's ability to provide Julian Assange with a fair trial ?

 

[The Don]

Not that this would make him different from Stalin or Pol Pot that much.
As you recall we started from there

Look, all I did was provide examples of the kind of evidence that would convince me that GWB could have started the Iraq War for a reason other than pleasing the lobbies in order to get re-elected. This was one such example. If they found in GWB's personal papers a diary entry like:

Tuesday:

Decided to gather together a coalition under US leadership to depose Saddam Hussein in order to get revenge for Saddam threatening Daddy back in the first Gulf War.

Had hot dog and ice-cream for dinner and then Mr Cheney read me a bedtime story about a pet goat -BEST DAY EVAH !!!!!!!

I'd be convinced.

Whether it's a legitimate reason or whether it makes GWB a bad person are entirely different questions.

All you need to do is to provide examples of the kind of evidence that would convince you that the Iraq war wasn't started to satisfy those lobby groups you mentioned.

 

[LashL]

Folks, please get back to the topic of the thread, stop personalizing the discussion, remember your Membership Agreement and be civil and polite. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Watanabe]

Thank you

So that's Cheney talking about an invasion of Iraq in 1991 as opposed to 2003. His objections were:

• In 1991 it would have been a US-only occupation - in 2003 it was a coalition operating under a UN mandate

• 
  
  It wasnt

 

[The Don]

It wasnt

It was a coalition. Iraq's failure to comply with UN resolution 1441 started the ball rolling and the invasion itself was carried out under UN Security Council Resolutions 660 and 678.


Of course all of this has no bearing on whether the sovereign nation of Sweden, which did not take part in the Iraq war and which is on record condemning it from providing Julian Assange, an Australian currently hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK, with a fair trial for sexual offences.

 

[eirik]

It wasnt

meant to make sense

 

[Border Reiver]

Of course all of this has no bearing on whether the sovereign nation of Sweden, which did not take part in the Iraq war and which is on record condemning it from providing Julian Assange, an Australian currently hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK, with a fair trial for sexual offences.

+1¹⁰

 

[TjW]

+1¹⁰

I think I understand your emotion, but that's still just +1.

 

[erwinl]

I think I understand your emotion, but that's still just +1.

But a very emphatic 1.

 

[The Don]

Watanabe, I was trying to get the discussion back on track rather than discussing the minutae a derail of a derail of a derail.

The purpose of this thread was to discuss what relevance Sweden's failure to prosecute GWB has on its ability to give Julian Assange a fair trial

The first derail (in this particular thread path) you introduced was to suggest that GWB started the Iraq war in order to pander to lobbies and hence improve his chances of re-election. Despite being asked several times for evidence to back this assertion, you have not done so and have instead asked for evidence to support the contrary view.

The second derail was my fault, in order to try and move the conversation forward, I asked you what kind of evidence would convince you that GWB did not start the war to appeal to lobbies. Eventually you responded with a list of points which, to my mind, had no bearing on GWB's motivations.

You seem to have become fixated on one of these, Dick Cheney's interview in 1994 about why the US did not invade Iraq in 1991. I tried to point out that the situation in 2003 was quite different. Once again, one point, seems to have captured your eye, UN support for the 2003 invasion and now we're bickering about this.

As I said, a derail of a derail of a derail...If you'd like a detailed discussion relating to UN support (or otherwise) of the 2003 Iraq invasion then find a thread where this is being discussed or start one.

For my part I'd prefer to either:

• Discuss any evidence you may have to support your assertion that GWB went to war in Iraq to pander to lobbies and improve his chances of re-election (the original derail)
• OR - How do the motivations for the ex-leader of one country going to war with a second country affect the ability of the independent judiciary a third country providing a fair trial to an alleged sex-offender who is a citizen of a fourth country and who is currently hiding out in the embassy of a fifth country located in the capital city of a sixth country ?

 

[Watanabe]

Since Sweden did not go much after GWB despite having strong relations with the US, then there is the legitimate suspect that they are not interested in going after Assange for the sex abuse (alleged) either

 

[Metullus]

Since Sweden did not go much after GWB despite having strong relations with the US, then there is the legitimate suspect that they are not interested in going after Assange for the sex abuse (alleged) either

Errr, no. Don't think so.

 

[The Don]

Since Sweden did not go much after GWB despite having strong relations with the US, then there is the legitimate suspect that they are not interested in going after Assange for the sex abuse (alleged) either

That's quite a claim.

Do you have any evidence to show that the Swedish justice system (which is one of the world's fairest and most impartial) can be corrupted in this way ?