Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Fare thee well, John Bolton, we hardly knew ye...

host · 12-04-2006, 12:44 PM

If we lean towards an attitude where we do not fully embrace the work and the statements of Ben Ferencz...that now is the time, sixty years after the Nuremberg prosecutions.....to insist on a preference for the rule of law over the rule of force......if we do not take issue with the absurd irony of someone posting here, to complain that the loss of Bolton as the US "face" at the UN, leaves no strong "defender" of the US..... against UN "insults"....when the US executive branch has violated the core principles that justified the Nuremberg verdicts, and launched the life's work of Ben Ferencz, what then, do others who disagree with ace.....stand for?

What outrages you? Do you not accept Ferencz's opinion that the Bush administration seems to have perpetrated an illegal war of aggression, a crime against humanitY?

IMO, the issue is clear....if you do not agree with Ferencz's opinion, and his goals, where does that place you, in relation to Bolton and Bush?

Ferencz warned publicly, in summer, 2002, and right before the 2003 Iraq invasion, that war. without a specific UN resolution to authorize it, would clearly be illegal. If you diagree with Ferencz. do you embrace his work of 60 years?

It seems, for some of you, the arguments of Ferencz, with the addition of the examples of other crimes....Abu Ghraib....the deliberate destruction of Fallujah and it's hospitals and infrastructure, the use there of prohibited weapons and the videotaped execution of wounded unarmed individuals by US soldiers, are, in the opinion of Ferencz. other crimes against humanity that are a direct result of illegal and aggressive war in Iraq, ordered by Mr. Bush, under false pretenses of non-existent threats....WMD...etc....ARE NOT ENOUGH.

Where does Ferencz have it wrong? How can anyone take Bush and Bolton as bearers of legitimate diplomacy? If all of us, here, who oppose Bolton, do not vigorously embrace the core issue....the legitimacy for our government's policy of illegal use of force over support for rules of law, who will embrace Ferencz's principles and goals?

Does Bush/Bolton's philosophy bring us closer or further away from the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of force? Isn't that the issue?

12-04-2006, 12:44 PM	#15 (permalink)
host Banned	If we lean towards an attitude where we do not fully embrace the work and the statements of Ben Ferencz...that now is the time, sixty years after the Nuremberg prosecutions.....to insist on a preference for the rule of law over the rule of force......if we do not take issue with the absurd irony of someone posting here, to complain that the loss of Bolton as the US "face" at the UN, leaves no strong "defender" of the US..... against UN "insults"....when the US executive branch has violated the core principles that justified the Nuremberg verdicts, and launched the life's work of Ben Ferencz, what then, do others who disagree with ace.....stand for? What outrages you? Do you not accept Ferencz's opinion that the Bush administration seems to have perpetrated an illegal war of aggression, a crime against humanitY? IMO, the issue is clear....if you do not agree with Ferencz's opinion, and his goals, where does that place you, in relation to Bolton and Bush? Ferencz warned publicly, in summer, 2002, and right before the 2003 Iraq invasion, that war. without a specific UN resolution to authorize it, would clearly be illegal. If you diagree with Ferencz. do you embrace his work of 60 years? It seems, for some of you, the arguments of Ferencz, with the addition of the examples of other crimes....Abu Ghraib....the deliberate destruction of Fallujah and it's hospitals and infrastructure, the use there of prohibited weapons and the videotaped execution of wounded unarmed individuals by US soldiers, are, in the opinion of Ferencz. other crimes against humanity that are a direct result of illegal and aggressive war in Iraq, ordered by Mr. Bush, under false pretenses of non-existent threats....WMD...etc....ARE NOT ENOUGH. Where does Ferencz have it wrong? How can anyone take Bush and Bolton as bearers of legitimate diplomacy? If all of us, here, who oppose Bolton, do not vigorously embrace the core issue....the legitimacy for our government's policy of illegal use of force over support for rules of law, who will embrace Ferencz's principles and goals? Does Bush/Bolton's philosophy bring us closer or further away from the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of force? Isn't that the issue? Last edited by host; 12-04-2006 at 01:00 PM..