Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (14847)	4/17/2007 9:25:14 AM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22250

Elroy > Why do you think Bush and his team should be punished for their crime (which I presume is allegedly breaking UN law) while Saddam should not have been punished for his crime of breaking numerous UN resolutions? Bush is a war criminal, something which Saddam was not. I thought that would have been obvious to you after the references I posted. Breaking UN Resolutions are technical issues, making war against nations which are not making war and do not intend to make war against yours is a crime. In fact, the most serious crime there is. It is on a par with genocide. > Yeah, and governments are intended to improve the lot of the populace they rule over, not worsen it. Whatever governments were intended to be and what they are is something one can talk about forever. Fact remains, there are international laws, laws which have been agreed on by all nations existing at the time, which ban aggression of one nation against another and especially for the reason you cite. It isn't a subject for debate, it's a fact. The nation who violates has committed a crime. > Lets stick to the previous topic rather than opening a brand new one. Excuse me if I have erred by mentioning Saddam's history at length, but I was tacitly discussing the original topic -- what benefit I see in Russia. And I was trying to point out that the West cannot be trusted to act correctly as the arbiter of justice because the US and Britain have their own agendas. It was further my argument, for what it's worth, that the only way the nations could be made to co-exist peacefully was when all, or at least many, were powerful.