Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
Based upon your sociopathic vilification and criticism of the Bush Administration here on this board, you make Mr. Pitt look like Noam Chomsky on a bad acid trip. Pitt appears to be several light years to your right, politically speaking.
I believe my own personal stance on the Iraq War has been well enough documented here.
|
Describe what I have posted as you see fit. My avatar is symbolic of my protest regarding to how far the Bush administration has "led" the U.S. away from Nuremberg Chief prosecutor Robert H. Jackson's description of the gravest crime that those who he prosecuted were charged with committing. The U.S. has engaged in war of aggression, and Bush himself has embraced a policy of "pre-emptive" war. Here are excerpts of an interview with a Jackson fellow prosecutor:
Quote:
http://www.courttv.com/archive/casef.../sprecher.html
<b>Interview with Nuremberg Trial Prosecutor Drexel Sprecher</b>
..........QUESTION: Why did Justice Jackson concentrate on the notion of aggressive war?
SPRECHER: Well, I think that Justice Jackson concentrated on aggressive war because it encompassed the whole. The atrocities, the war crimes, would not have been possible if there hadn't been aggressive war.
So I think he wanted to point out and to emphasize that the worst crime of all is the initial one, which is aggressive war. And that following it come the atrocities and the war crimes.........
...........QUESTION: What is Nuremberg's legacy?
SPRECHER: Well, I think it's a multiple legacy. I think <b>the legacy of Nuremberg is partly to make people think at an earlier point about potential dictators and how they themselves get tied into a regime which begins to take shortcuts,</B> and which sooner or later starts to kill its opposition. First some of its own people. <b>[Achtung, powerclown !]</b>
The German -- the -- as Justice Jackson said, the first victims of the Nazi regime were the German people. And then he went, went out and spread to other folks.
I think <b>one of the legacies of Nuremberg was to make us look more at potential dictators and to try to nip them in the bud at a sooner rate................</B>
|
These are not circumstances that can be met with a reaction that is any less forceful in it's tone of outrage and condemnation than Mr. Jackson relegated similar circumstances to, 60 years ago. I have had no choice other than to put you, (and anyone else who share your views and acts similarly) too, on notice that you are reprehensible because you condone the crimes of this administration against humanity.
Note that I post my objections, you actually act much more gravely. in the inverse, by voting for, and then encouraging these criminals to continue their illegal policies. You possibly support their endeavors with political contributions, and by spreading a message that encourages others to support
these war criminals and their anti-constitutional agenda.
I proudly embrace your label of "sociopathic vilification" because it signifies that you believe, that I am against everything politcally and militarily that you are in favor of.
You should have included the rest of the paragraph form my last post here, that you chose to quote....and afford me the courtsey of an answer to my question:
Quote:
|
Mr. Pitt speaks for me in the excerpt from his recent commentary. <b>Please direct me to a comparable example of even handed examination of mistakes that republican political leaders have made, or where demands were made to admit and apologize for mistakes?</b>
|