A quote from the Nuremberg Trial - For all those who were pr [Archive]

Cassius Clay

2nd June 2003, 19:54

‘’To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.’’

‘’We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their leaders are on trials is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances of policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy’’

Senior American representative at Nurember, Samuel L Jackson 1945.

Urban Rubble

2nd June 2003, 20:47

What is the point of this thread ?

Xvall

2nd June 2003, 23:03

To show the anti-war people that the Numenberg Trial clearly stated what is going too far; a line that many people here have seemed to believe is alright to cross.

CopperGoat

2nd June 2003, 23:19

Samuel L Jackson?

haha!

James

2nd June 2003, 23:44

interesting post CC

canikickit

3rd June 2003, 02:40

Great post Cassius. I'd heard it before, but I think it is upsetting to say the least at the lack of interest in this thread.

Samuel L Jackson 1945

That's pretty funny though.

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd June 2003, 03:54

this law is not the reason why we must oppose American aggression. We must oppose American aggression because it is an imperilaist move made by corporate america and it's greedy manipulation of the corrupt government. Though I see you point, this proves, without, mention of imperialism, that the war was unjustified, even through the eyes of a (logical) capitalist. (what a notion, a 'logical capitalist', does that exist?!)

suffianr

3rd June 2003, 14:31

Nice quotes.

‘'To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.’’

What a bunch of bloody hypocrites.

As for Mr Jackson, that quote's not quite as funny as seeing him dressed like a Jedi, pulling out a purple light saber, and saying [/i]"This party's over"[/i], to a perplexed Count Dooku. Somebody fucking shoot George Lucas. That scene was horrible.

Loknar

4th June 2003, 06:59

Well for these quotes to apply we would have to wage a war of agression first. You people are very nieve to think that Saddam is some great guy that woulnt harm a soul.

ABout that 2nd quote, I think that applies to Saddam.

(Edited by Loknar at 7:01 am on June 4, 2003)

Zombie

4th June 2003, 07:10

Who said we thought of Saddam as being a nice guy? You're quick on judgment.
Almost all of the leftists here are against Saddam, as well as Dubya.

You must be pretty naive yourself if you think Bush's actions were/are justified.

Loknar

4th June 2003, 07:21

I dont know if they were justified, but I do know that he isnt concerned about the Iraqi people. However Saddam is an evil man. Have you seen any footage of the crimes he has comitted?

James

4th June 2003, 10:26

Yes, but "we" started the WAR.

Anyway, it can all be linked back to the west in the first place, so hush please.

Ghost Writer

4th June 2003, 10:46

James, since you hate the West so much why don't you go live in the East? Please explain how Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity can be attributed to the West. You want those who recognize this evil to "hush". I always knew you were sympathetic to Stalinism, hence your preferrence to silence of such matters. God damn, backstabbing communist. You would bury me, and those like me, in graves similar to those that Saddam possessed, if you could. Fortunately, you are an idiot, and will never have the power to live out your Marxist fantasy. For now, you will have to settle for cross-dressing. Too bad.

James

4th June 2003, 11:21

woooo someone has got an over active imagination!
Howcome i hate the west?
My point was that if it wasn't for western actions, Saddam would never have got to power.

I always knew you were sympathetic to Stalinism, hence your preferrence to silence of such matters

lol, what you on about boy?

God damn, backstabbing communist
hahaha
Who have i backstabbed?

You would bury me, and those like me, in graves similar to those that Saddam possessed, if you could

erm no i wouldn't.... i'm amazed that you've come to such a conclusion though. If not amused.
haha

Fortunately, you are an idiot, and will never have the power to live out your Marxist fantasy

lucky for you then i suppose :S

For now, you will have to settle for cross-dressing. Too bad.

Lol!
Cross dressing?
yep... over active imagination.

Loknar

4th June 2003, 13:12

Quote: from James on 10:26 am on June 4, 2003
Yes, but "we" started the WAR.

Anyway, it can all be linked back to the west in the first place, so hush please.

Tell me: What is wrong with starting a war if it is for a useful cause?

And dont tell; me to 'hush' you asshole. I am sick of Communists like you who would destroy half the world just to gain power. And if you hate the west so much and if you're a Stalinist move your ass North Korea. But you wont because you dont know what to do with our great country's.

(Edited by Loknar at 1:13 pm on June 4, 2003)

James

4th June 2003, 16:45

lol, okay i'll explain my point
*rolls eyes*
It is dead straight forward; hopefully you'll see why i said hush...

You said
Well for these quotes to apply we would have to wage a war of agression first

The quote applies. I fear you havn't even had a good read of the quote...
*sigh*

The quote;
‘’To initiate a war of aggression

This is the key phrase.
This means he who starts a war and abandones international diplomacy.

is not only an international crime;

Do you not see the irony?

it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.’’

You see Saddam i suppose is guilty of 'war crimes' type crimes. Thus he is a bad chap, no one denies this; its a crazy American paranoid conspiracy theory that everyone who opposed the Iraq war was pro war.

Such a theory seems to suggest that these hawks and flag wavers are only capable of seeing black and white, good and evil, us and them.

‘’We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their leaders are on trials is not that they lost the war, but that they started it.

Following?
Now pay attention, another key point here...

And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances of policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy’’

Understand now?

(Edited by James at 4:48 pm on June 4, 2003)

Loknar

4th June 2003, 17:14

James, let me ask you this: Was Israel correct in their decision to attack their neighbors in the '67 war?

Also, sometimes diplomacy runs out and military action is necessary. People like you allowed Hitler to build his awesome war machine and allowed Japan to retain Manchuria after their illegal invasion.

Plus if you want to go down this road then Saddam is guilty as well. I wont say he was wrong necessarily for invading Iran considering they provoked him but he did invade Kuwait with out warning.

James

4th June 2003, 18:56

erm, why don't you shut up for a second and actually read the posts.

All i'm telling you is what the quote means because you seem unable to comprehend it.

Also, sometimes diplomacy runs out and military action is necessary. People like you allowed Hitler to build his awesome war machine and allowed Japan to retain Manchuria after their illegal invasion.

Ooooooh! now that is oringional isn't it!

btw, you are WRONG
People "like" me, the LEFT, were the first to fight Hitler in Spain; what did america do at the time?
Nothing
Did america join in when Hitler invaded europe?
Did america join in when kaiser invaded europe?

So group americans in this group please...
Secondly, the Brit PM, guess what party (and its ideology) he was... go on...

Just don't bother with these attempts to make your self sound more intelligent by using history. It just doesn't suit you. Call me anti american arab or something... more your "style".

Loknar

4th June 2003, 19:09

btw, you are WRONG
People "like" me, the LEFT, were the first to fight Hitler in Spain; what did america do at the time?
Nothing
Did america join in when Hitler invaded europe?
Did america join in when kaiser invaded europe?

I am not talking about Communists fighting in Spain (BTW there was no difference between the Fascists and Commies in that conflict, don’t tell me Stalin was trying to do something right) I am talking about you pacifists who refuse to take any military action. That is exactly what Europe did even while Hitler violated the treaty of Versailles. They didn’t even bother to stop Hitler from invading Czechoslovakia.

So group americans in this group please...

Yeah no kidding, we were wrong for isolating our selves. AT least I can admit that, you cant admit that Communism to date has been responsible for over 90 million deaths (I have a source to back me up).

Secondly, the Brit PM, guess what party (and its ideology) he was... go on...

Chamberlain? I'm not sure actually. Please enlighten me.
[b]

Just don't bother with these attempts to make your self sound more intelligent by using history. It just doesn't suit you. Call me anti american arab or something... more your "style".

Oh boy, I am trying to make a point that diplomacy isn’t always the answer. People like you will preach of peace and disarmament all while some asshole build a huge war machine and it will always bite you on the ass. And please answer my question about Israel and the '67 war.

James

5th June 2003, 00:55

I am not talking about Communists fighting

No because you believe in selective history.

in Spain (BTW there was no difference between the Fascists and Commies in that conflict, don’t tell me Stalin was trying to do something right)

Stalin??
I'm on about good old brits here...

I am talking about you pacifists who refuse to take any military action.

erm, well why didn't you say so instead of making such sweeping comments.

That is exactly what Europe did even while Hitler violated the treaty of Versailles. They didn’t even bother to stop Hitler from invading Czechoslovakia.

As Hitler claimed reasons. When you look at the reasons, by modern standards, it doesn't seem too bad.
Lets see, we invade Iraq, and the reason seems to disapear!
Maybe hitler had better reasons?

Yeah no kidding, we were wrong for isolating our selves. AT least I can admit that, you cant admit that Communism to date has been responsible for over 90 million deaths (I have a source to back me up).

LMAO
Okay... we are moving about here arn't we?
If you are going to go to such "details" please use the correct terms i.e. Stalinist Russia

Chamberlain? I'm not sure actually. Please enlighten me.

OH COME ON!
If you are going to try to "use" history please actually make an attempt!
I'm not going to simply tell you, pick up a history book!
And then when you realize your stupidity, please please please hush!

Oh boy, I am trying to make a point that diplomacy isn’t always the answer.

No you arn't. You are just making assumptions and selecting bits of history that you then loosely apply to support your paranoia.

People like you

Here we go again.
Stop doing this, for your own sake!
Watch, you look stupid.

will preach of peace and disarmament

Please quote me.
I do nothing of the sort.

all while some asshole

Saddam?
The guy the west practically created?

build a huge war machine

Oh i remember!
Us brits (several capitalists living in England), i say us brits because you struggle if its not in black and white... , helped him make a big gun! No joking, "we" actually did.
But its kind of respectable, when one considers what "you" sold him.

and it will always bite you on the ass.

And do capitalists stop doing this?
nope.

And please answer my question about Israel and the '67 war.

http://www.cactus48.com/1967war.html

You want me to say "no" don't you, so that you can give the impression that i'm a pacifist!

However, alas, i know fuck all about that war; all i know is that each side blames the other lar die dar blah blah blah
Sorry :)

Loknar

5th June 2003, 02:58

James

Please explain what you met :

Secondly, the Brit PM, guess what party (and its ideology) he was... go on...

I dont know every detail of history (though I am very fluent) of a leaders political views.

My point was that sometimes diplomacy wont work with some nations and sometimes the gloves need to come off. Saddam would be in power today had he complied with the UN.

ABout the Spanish Civil war:

Which communists are you referring to? There were the volunteer's that came from all over the world to fight and then then there was the aid that Stalin sent.

And dont tell me to pick up a history book, I do every day actually. Tell me where I am wrong.

I have the idea that either you're a pacifist no matter what. Or just simply a Communist who opposes anything America does.

Pete

5th June 2003, 03:00

I have the idea that either you're a pacifist no matter what. Or just simply a Communist who opposes anything America does.

I have the idea you are a blind, brain soiled fool.

Loknar

5th June 2003, 03:01

You want me to say "no" don't you, so that you can give the impression that i'm a pacifist!

'

No, I just want you to realize that war is necessary sometimes.

James

5th June 2003, 12:23

Secondly, the Brit PM, guess what party (and its ideology) he was... go on...

I dont know every detail of history (though I am very fluent) of a leaders political views.

My point was that sometimes diplomacy wont work with some nations and sometimes the gloves need to come off.

You were trying to make a point, by using a period of history which you obviously don't know anything about. So don't.
If you pick up books alot, then go look it up you fool!

Notice, this is why, for example, i wouldn't try to make a point by using the 1967 war; as i hardly know anything about it. Maybe you need to learn this lesson...

Saddam would be in power today had he complied with the UN.

No he wouldn't!
If you believe that i feel really sorry for you.

How was he not complying a few weeks before the war started?
watch out... i think you may be about to go on about stuff which you don't know anything about
*rolls eyes*

Loknar

5th June 2003, 17:08

You were trying to make a point, by using a period of history which you obviously don't know anything about. So don't.
If you pick up books alot, then go look it up you fool!

I can only assume you were talking out of your ass since you dont offer any explaination. And I know about pre-WW2 history quite well.

Notice, this is why, for example, i wouldn't try to make a point by using the 1967 war; as i hardly know anything about it. Maybe you need to learn this lesson...

Well I do know about both periods in history actually.

Saddam would be in power today had he complied with the UN.

How was he not complying a few weeks before the war started?
watch out... i think you may be about to go on about stuff which you don't know anything about
*rolls eyes*

[/quote]

well tell me how he was complying, I remember we had difficulty just trying to fly a spy plane over Iraqi territory (which was apart of the UN resolution). Also we found unmamed drone planes and the AL-Samoud 2missiles.

James

5th June 2003, 20:47

I can only assume you were talking out of your ass since you dont offer any explaination. And I know about pre-WW2 history quite well.

lmao, read your posts.

You use a period of history without knowing the basic of facts!
For example; Chamberlain? I'm not sure actually. Please enlighten me.

If you don't even know this you should either, go away, or read up. I notice you still havn't.
Look in other threads in this forum too, constantly you seem to love to use your selective history. I can't be arsed posting examples because it's a waste of time as some examples are in this thread. If you want more examples though look in the thread; Facisim or communism, or something. Great examples there.

Well I do know about both periods in history actually
You missed my point.
Firstly, i don't talk about a period of time, especially be as arrogant to try to make a point by using as you do (e.g. pre WW1), which i only know the very basic facts of; i.e.not enough to come to an educated conclusion.

Thus, you shouldn't do so as its stupid and people will think you are a cretin, e.g. that thread on the choice.

well tell me how he was complying, I remember we had difficulty just trying to fly a spy plane over Iraqi territory (which was apart of the UN resolution). Also we found unmamed drone planes and the AL-Samoud 2missiles.
*sigh*
All i'm going to bother to say is that i think Blix knows more on the subject than either you or I.
Ok?

Loknar

5th June 2003, 23:46

You use a period of history without knowing the basic of facts!
For example; Chamberlain? I'm not sure actually. Please enlighten me.

You implied that the British leadership had some sort of political stanse. I would like to know what that is, you claim to know it so tell me.

*sigh*
All i'm going to bother to say is that i think Blix knows more on the subject than either you or I.
Ok?

He knows more about it. but an iraqi nuclear program in the early 90's eluded him. He was going to declare to the UN that Iraq had no nuclear program. Well a man defected and he led the inspectors to an extensive nuclear program.

Pete

5th June 2003, 23:55

The man who defected in the same memo said that Iraq had (not HAD...past tense of the verb to have) a nuclear program said that it had been dismantled in accoradance to the UN resolution.

Speak of what you know, not what you think you know.

Xvall

6th June 2003, 02:18

However Saddam is an evil man. Have you seen any footage of the crimes he has comitted?

Yes. I have also seen footage of Israleli soldiers doing very mean things; but that doesn't mean that it's okay for Islamic Extremists to go around blowing up Israelis in spite of Sharon, does it?

Loknar

6th June 2003, 06:28

Drake Dracoli

Of course it doesnt. But Israel is constantly under attack. Sharone is going to dismantle some settelments now, if that isnt a peace jesture I dont know what is. However Syrian and Iranian supported Hezbollah will continue to commit acts of terrorism and Hamas wont disarm until Israel is completely out of the west bank and Gaza. However Israel is going to munch some land because they screwed with them and they need the defensive positions.

James

6th June 2003, 09:16

You implied that the British leadership had some sort of political stanse. I would like to know what that is, you claim to know it so tell me.

There was a flaw with that post, it should have read;

You use a period of history without knowing the basic of facts!
For example, you said;
"Chamberlain? I'm not sure actually. Please enlighten me."

Yes he did have a political stance. Now this is very complicated thus requires you to pay attention, you need to get yourself this thing called a history book. If you struggle get someone older to help you. Once you have one, tell me, and i'll tell you how to use the index.
Ok?

He knows more about it. but an iraqi nuclear program in the early 90's eluded him. He was going to declare to the UN that Iraq had no nuclear program. Well a man defected and he led the inspectors to an extensive nuclear program.

So the defection of one man supposedly revealed all this?
How many defectors (vuluntary, and the other sort ;)) do you think "we" have now?

I'm not going to even start on Iraq, or further attempt to explain something which you obviously
A) Don't have the mental capacity to understand
or
B) Do not wish to understand

Instead i will give you this link;
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/paper...erious2003.html (http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/serious2003.html)

And ask you again to please, please, please hush.
Thank you.

Loknar

6th June 2003, 15:34

Yes he did have a political stance.

Well no shit.

Now this is very complicated thus requires you to pay attention, you need to get yourself this thing called a history book. If you struggle get someone older to help you. Once you have one, tell me, and i'll tell you how to use the index.
Ok?

Oh I see, so just because I dont know Chemberlains political idology I am some how completely ignorant of that period? I have to tell you, that doesnt hold water.

Invader Zim

6th June 2003, 16:57

I am talking about you pacifists who refuse to take any military action. That is exactly what Europe did even while Hitler violated the treaty of Versailles. They didn’t even bother to stop Hitler from invading Czechoslovakia.

You want to talk about betrayal of the Treaty of Versailles. Lets look at the USA's betrayal shall we, the US president prodused the 14 points peace plan. One of these points was the creation of the League of Nations.

The setting up of the league of nations was one of the few points that the allied leaders could agree on. The league of nations was set up designed around the fact that the 5 super-states (except Russia) would be members. But guess what the most powerful of these nations refused to join leaving it crippled and with out any bite. The nation was the USA, the same nation who came up with the idea. Isnt that Ironic, that you attack the european pacafists like Chamberlin for ignoring the treaty of Versilles when the USA were the first to cripple one of its judgements.

Also the Manchuria affair, was frowned apon by the Leauge of nations, it did not reach/could not reach any decisive decisions because the Japaneese bacisally ignored the leauge because it saw without the most powerful nation in the world, it did not see any repercussions such as trade sanctions having any affect.

Go away and read up on your history boy. Then come back and I will educate you some more.

Loknar

6th June 2003, 17:09

You want to talk about betrayal of the Treaty of Versailles. Lets look at the USA's betrayal shall we, the US president prodused the 14 points peace plan. One of these points was the creation of the League of Nations.

I agree %100
But guess what the most powerful of these nations refused to join leaving it crippled and with out any bite. The nation was the USA, the same nation who came up with the idea. Isnt that Ironic, that you attack the european pacafists like Chamberlin for ignoring the treaty of Versilles when the USA were the first to cripple one of its judgements.

We all were wrong.
[b]

Actually RUssia offered the LoN military action against Germany, of course it never happened.

suffianr

6th June 2003, 18:45

Also the Manchuria affair, was frowned apon by the Leauge of nations, it did not reach/could not reach any decisive decisions because the Japaneese bacisally ignored the leauge because it saw without the most powerful nation in the world, it did not see any repercussions such as trade sanctions having any affect.

Let's not forget the plain fact that Japan, at that point in time, had yet to attack any of the West's vital interests i.e. colonies with precious natural resources. ;)

Yes, the bastards had the nerve to wait until Pearl Harbour, didn't they?

White Imperialist #1: Oh, Malaya? It's just a bunch of tin-mining colonies and rubber plantations. Yes, let's wait until those awful Jap fellows reach Singapore, then, shall we? We'll turn those squinty-eyed, yellow-bellied fops around and drive them back to Yokohama or whichever retched place they came from, I say.

White Imperialst #2: Oh, rather. Why waste our own precious resources defending those poor, uneducated locals? Those Amahs, those Chinamen and those Bengalis. Let's wait and see, old chap. Yes, now pass the scones, Viceroy, if you please.

Fucking hell. The defence of Malaya and the rest of the British Empire's colonies in South East Asia was a complete fucking disaster. Forget Force Z, forget the Prince of Wales and the Repulse, the British military's game-plan was a total Allied balls-up.

My grandparents, and of course, many other Malayans, suffered for nearly five years after the British abandonment, er, retreat from Malaya. Who the fuck were they to Churchill?

Loknar

6th June 2003, 20:48

suffianr

I am sure you loved it when the COmmunists ran the place.

(Edited by Loknar at 8:49 pm on June 6, 2003)

Loknar

6th June 2003, 20:50

Let's not forget the plain fact that Japan, at that point in time, had yet to attack any of the West's vital interests i.e. colonies with precious natural resources.

It was a war of agression, Japan blew up some railroads and claimed that the Chinese did it.

James

6th June 2003, 23:45

Oh I see, so just because I dont know Chemberlains political idology I am some how completely ignorant of that period? I have to tell you, that doesnt hold water.

No, i didn't say that did i?
However, Chamberlain was the major appeaser; you tried to make a point by using this period of time. etc etc etc
Thus you should know the most well known fact etc etc etc
You are howver totally ignorant because you still havn't been able to look it up for yourself.

You try to make points and use history which you don't know! This makes you a cretin.