Paul, <You called the suggestion that Saddam is directly responsible 'absurd' >
Responsible for what? You have forgotten what I wrote.
I was responding to the idea that Saddam is responsible for everything. That's the silly part. He's directly responsible for what he's part of. If he appointed somebody who appointed somebody who set up a torture chamber, and Saddam had some knowledge of that, then he's liable, even though removed from the decisions on which torture implement to use.
But Saddam is NOT responsible in the slightest for decisions made by coalition people who might have committed criminal acts. You can be sure that not all coalition troops are happy little charmers. Firemen at the Twin Towers were looting. That's what you get with big numbers of people and opportunities for criminal and malevolent and cruel action.
For ease of reference,
He wrote: <<Saddam had MONTHS to comply, or surrender. He chose not to do either, and is DIRECTLY to blame for every single casualty, no matter which side it came from. >>
I wrote:
<That's absurd. Though under Might Makes Right laws of the jungle, under which we still live, the victors can declare any absurdity they like and declare anyone they like to be guilty of crimes against humanity, war crimes, etc.
The people responsible for somebody's death are the people who worked to make it happen. That would include the person who pulled the trigger, the aimer, the target selector, the negligent person who didn't bother to correctly put the 'smart' in the smart bomb and produced a stupid bomb. Etc. >
See?
I am always right.
Mqurice
PS: Okay, I did think the war against Saddam would take a single Globalstar orbit, not a few weeks, so I don't get everything right. The tanks had to actually drive to Baghdad and supply lines had to be established. |
