NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc

This reminds me of a quote by Freidrich Nietzsche:
"Be careful that when you stare into the abyss, the abyss does not stare back into you"

For someone who was so adamant about ending the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, you'd think that Bush would have more respect for the civil liberties and freedoms that he is supposedly defending.

Maybe I am just in a crabby mood; can anyone possibly justify a reason why Bush would need to pardon himself for war crimes? How does that make him any better than the tyrants that he deposed in the first place?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc

This reminds me of a quote by Freidrich Nietzsche:
"Be careful that when you stare into the abyss, the abyss does not stare back into you"

For someone who was so adamant about ending the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, you'd think that Bush would have more respect for the civil liberties and freedoms that he is supposedly defending.

Maybe I am just in a crabby mood; can anyone possibly justify a reason why Bush would need to pardon himself for war crimes? How does that make him any better than the tyrants that he deposed in the first place?

The passing of a bill that grants retroactive immunity from prosocution for war crimes. Fucking hell.

Funny stuff. Very very funny. I stopped watching it once I heard the phrase Republican Stooges. The thing is...it passed the house which is um...DEMOCRATIC CAFFERTY!

Besides that, the Supreme Court ruled, Cafferty, to suspend military tribunals of detainees.

Friedrich Nietzsche, was a strange guy.
If that video is true then George Bush is trying to cover his tracks. Not democratic in the least.

Funny stuff. Very very funny. I stopped watching it once I heard the phrase Republican Stooges. The thing is...it passed the house which is um...DEMOCRATIC CAFFERTY!

Besides that, the Supreme Court ruled, Cafferty, to suspend military tribunals of detainees.

I fail to see how attempting to retro-actively pardon yourself from possible warcrime prosecutions is in any way funny. Could you please explain?

It is a mockery of the Geneva Conventions and the tenets of not only International, but American justice.

Quite interesting that this legislation was pushed forward before the November election, and this little immunity clause was secretly slipped in, below board.

What does Bush have to fear if "America does not torture?"

So,... basically he can't even be prosecuted in front of an international tribune in the Hague?

Gutsy move,...

You just cannot make this stuff up. Nice to see another example of how the supposed checks and balances of the American system simply result in the various branches working together for the sole benefit of the Federal government.

old news is old

horrific, but still old.

What warcrimes? America has never been at war with Iraq. We've always been at war with Iran.

The problem with all this modern stealth warfare is all is likened to "unamedakistan". There's no need for formal declaration whatsoever.

What warcrimes? America has never been at war with Iraq. We've always been at war with Iran.

old news is old

horrific, but still old.

Old, but still something I certainly didn't know about, and I imagine many Americans and world citizens are sadly unaware of.

Funny stuff. Very very funny. I stopped watching it once I heard the phrase Republican Stooges. The thing is...it passed the house which is um...DEMOCRATIC CAFFERTY!

Besides that, the Supreme Court ruled, Cafferty, to suspend military tribunals of detainees.

It's rather obvious that this happened before the Democrats took office.

Just curious, did the bill pass the Senate?

I hope it didn't. because I still want to see the lot of those bastards behind bars.

It's rather obvious that this happened before the Democrats took office.

Just curious, did the bill pass the Senate?

I hope it didn't. because I still want to see the lot of those bastards behind bars.

2006. and i don't recall that specific provision passing, but given the mind-numbing string of atrocities of the past decade, i may have forgotten one or two.

doesn't matter, because we are going to have to rely on either the revolution™ or some other country to apprehend and try these fuckers for their crimes. they openly admitted on national tv to committing multiple felonies, each one of which already carries years of prison time, and nothing happened.

the democrats ain't gonna do shit about it, that's for sure.

What warcrimes? America has never been at war with Iraq. We've always been at war with Iran.

Doubleplus good post.

simple. After 2008, he's gone.

is rotating tyranny really any better than for-life tyranny?

It's rather obvious that this happened before the Democrats took office.

Just curious, did the bill pass the Senate?

I hope it didn't. because I still want to see the lot of those bastards behind bars.

What as Barmen?
I like some bars and pubs. But i can see where you're going with the larger techno bars.

How does that make him any better than the tyrants that he deposed in the first place?
simple. After 2008, he's gone.

God damn, this infuriates me so much. It makes me wish someone would extract Bush, Rumsfeld and the others Israeli style, so they could be put on trial, and made to answer the charges against them.

If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.

It is complete and utter hypocrisy for the most prominent western nation to call for the deposing of dictators and war criminals, and continue to support the trial, prosecution and sentence of war criminals in nations such as the former Yugoslavia, Cambodia and African nations, and not allow thier leaders to fall under the exact same standards of scrutiny. This is a mockery of International justice and American national justice.

What warcrimes? America has never been at war with Iraq. We've always been at war with Iran.

Actually...we have been at war with Iraq since 1991.

Actually...we have been at war with Iraq since 1991.

You mean 1984.

What warcrimes? America has never been at war with Iraq. We've always been at war with Iran.That's a good point.

is rotating tyranny really any better than for-life tyranny?

as long as the masses only choose between TWO parties, Rotating Tyranny is the only form we would get.

I think Europe needs to invade us and preform a "regiem change", rush Bush through a simply symbolic trial, quickly hand out a death sentence, and publically hang him.


ie, exactly what we did in Iraq to Saddam for war crimes.


*awaits NM and HSH to come in and defend Bush's actions*

I think Europe needs to invade us and preform a "regime change", rush Bush through a simply symbolic trial, quickly hand out a death sentence, and publicly hang him.Or let the English dig up a very old law that would allow for him to be thrown in the Tower and then be tortured and publicly beheaded.

For the record, Hasstert is a stooge, regardless of party. The guy's office is about 20 minutes from my house. Ive met him a few times.

For the record, Hasstert is a stooge, regardless of party. The guy's office is about 20 minutes from my house. Ive met him a few times.

Next time you see him, you should say this to his face. say "Dennis Hastert, you are a stooge." then walk away.

What warcrimes? America has never been at war with Iraq. We've always been at war with Iran.

Doubleplus good post indeed.

Actually...we have been at war with Iraq since 1991.

Might I remind that that thoughtcrime does not result in death, thoughtcrime is death. :mp5:

On a more serious note, no we have not. No declaration of war was given, ergo the US is not technically at war.

Fuck Bush.

The passing of a bill that grants retroactive immunity from prosocution for war crimes. Fucking hell.

Wow... it's like Nuremberg in reverse!

God damn, this infuriates me so much. It makes me wish someone would extract Bush, Rumsfeld and the others Israeli style, so they could be put on trial, and made to answer the charges against them.

If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.

Funny, that seems to be the government's argument for a lot of domestic spying...

On a more serious note, no we have not. No declaration of war was given, ergo the US is not technically at war.

Was going to say, if you want to get that technical, we haven't been at war since Truman was in office.

On a more serious note, no we have not. No declaration of war was given, ergo the US is not technically at war.

Actually...yes we have as the UN Security Council basicly declared war on Iraq for not pulling out of Kuwait. Since then, the UN signed a cease-fire agreement with Iraq and no formal peace treaty was ever signed. Ergo, we were still at war with Iraq.

Wow... it's like Nuremberg in reverse!

That's actually true since Genocide was not actually against international law until AFTER World War II.

Was going to say, if you want to get that technical, we haven't been at war since Truman was in office.

Actually FDR as we were already at war when Truman took over.

Actually...yes we have as the UN Security Council basicly declared war on Iraq for not pulling out of Kuwait. Since then, the UN signed a cease-fire agreement with Iraq and no formal peace treaty was ever signed. Ergo, we were still at war with Iraq.

Only the US congress can declare that a state of war exists between the US and any other sovereign nation. The UN Security Council authorized a military intervention, it did not declare war. The US soldiers deployed in 91 where under the Aegis of the UN, not the US, in any case. As were the soldiers deployed by all of the other nations.

Only the US congress can declare that a state of war exists between the US and any other sovereign nation. The UN Security Council authorized a military intervention, it did not declare war. The US soldiers deployed in 91 where under the Aegis of the UN, not the US, in any case. As were the soldiers deployed by all of the other nations.

Which were under the command of US CENTCOM commander Stormin' Norman. And yes. Congress authorized American involvement in Iraq in 1991 which effectively declared war, just not formally. And my point still stands that there was no peace treaty signed. Ergo, we were still at war with Iraq.

I fail to see how attempting to retro-actively pardon yourself from possible warcrime prosecutions is in any way funny. Could you please explain?

Certainly.

It is a mockery of the Geneva Conventions and the tenets of not only International, but American justice.

Which were under the command of US CENTCOM commander Stormin' Norman. And yes. Congress authorized American involvement in Iraq in 1991 which effectively declared war, just not formally. And my point still stands that there was no peace treaty signed. Ergo, we were still at war with Iraq.

It is not an official war without a declaration.

It is not an official war without a declaration.

It was declared. Just not formally.

So,... basically he can't even be prosecuted in front of an international tribune in the Hague?

Gutsy move,...

As far as I know, no Americans can. We haven't signed the International Court thingy.

God damn, this infuriates me so much. It makes me wish someone would extract Bush, Rumsfeld and the others Israeli style, so they could be put on trial, and made to answer the charges against them.

If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.

It is complete and utter hypocrisy for the most prominent western nation to call for the deposing of dictators and war criminals, and continue to support the trial, prosecution and sentence of war criminals in nations such as the former Yugoslavia, Cambodia and African nations, and not allow thier leaders to fall under the exact same standards of scrutiny. This is a mockery of International justice and American national justice.

Well for one thing, they didn't commit any war crimes.

For another- international justice is a joke.

Well, violating the Geneva Convention is a war crime.

And he did violate the Geneva Convention according to the Supreme Court.


Ergo...

Ergo, the Supreme Court ruled against the Military Tribunals which they said violated the Geneva Convention.

Que George W. Bush está haciendo qué?!?!?!?!?!?!:eek:
That man's a megalomaniac, and someone should kill him, like, right away. Any snipers here want to take the offer?:D

Well for one thing, they didn't commit any war crimes.

For another- international justice is a joke.



Well, violating the Geneva Convention is a war crime.

And he did violate the Geneva Convention according to the Supreme Court.


Ergo...

Actually...yes we have as the UN Security Council basicly declared war on Iraq for not pulling out of Kuwait. Since then, the UN signed a cease-fire agreement with Iraq and no formal peace treaty was ever signed. Ergo, we were still at war with Iraq.

The key words that makes your argument wrong is bolded.

You guys over react. I mean come on so waht he is pardoning himself ofsuch acts. The Geneva convention usually allies during war times and to soldiers. Spies do not count under this. Also torture is one of the best ways to get people to talk when they wont. Almost all countries torture to get information but no one but america admits it.

As far as I know, no Americans can. We haven't signed the International Court thingy.
However, if he should come to Europe, he can be arrested if he had been indicted at The Hague. iirr.

However, if he should come to Europe, he can be arrested if he had been indicted at The Hague. iirr.

Really?

What European country would have the balls to do that?

First, the European countries police would to kill the entire secret service detachment protecting Mr. Bush, and then face the retaliations of the US. I'm thinking special forces to get Mr. Bush back, and then an invasion to put whatever country back in its place.have

You know what? I'd volunteer for that operation. No Americans in "international courts', please. We have our own.

That man's a megalomaniac, and someone should kill him, like, right away. Any snipers here want to take the offer?:D

Congratulations! You've won a FREE trip to Gitmo! :D

Really?

What European country would have the balls to do that?

First, the European countries police would to kill the entire secret service detachment protecting Mr. Bush, and then face the retaliations of the US. I'm thinking special forces to get Mr. Bush back, and then an invasion to put whatever country back in its place.have

You know what? I'd volunteer for that operation. No Americans in "international courts', please. We have our own.

Well prosecutors in Germany were going to take Rumsfeld and a number of American government figures to court for war crimes committed in Abu Ghraib prison, but the Federal prosecutor threw out the case due to political pressure, and the fact that Rumsfeld would never come to Germany to answer the charges and clear his name.

And since you have your own courts, why don't you try Bush?

...

Oh wait, he just circumvented your entire justice system, and in addition to having the ability to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions as he sees fit (a duty formerly given to the Judiciary), he can never be convicted of war crimes even if it were proven beyond a doubt he was responsible or complicit in the atrocities that have been committed in the name of Uncle Sam in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

So, in short, Bush can declare anyone in the world as a enemy combatant, a person with no human rights whatsoever, and can "reinterpret" the Geneva Conventions so they don't apply, and have you tortured. And even if he was personally waterboarding you in the middle of the White House lawn, legally, nobody can touch him.

Let's hope you never get in trouble with the government, my friend.

However, I'm sure you'd still be perfectly willing to rescue him from us Evil Euro's regardless.

You guys over react. I mean come on so waht he is pardoning himself ofsuch acts. The Geneva convention usually allies during war times and to soldiers. Spies do not count under this. Also torture is one of the best ways to get people to talk when they wont. Almost all countries torture to get information but no one but america admits it.

But does that make it right? Would you torture someone to extract information? Would you hold it against someone if they tortured you for information?

Let's hope you never get in trouble with the government, my friend.

They say that the first signs of a country's move towards an authoritarian style government is A: it passes protection laws with the rationale that "if you're not a criminal, then you have nothing to worry about", and B: passes so many laws that everyone becomes a criminal and the government can pick and choose who it wishes to prosecute.

The trend is starting. Uncle says that "if you are not a terrorist, then you have nothing to worry about". What happens when Uncle decides to expand his definition of a terrorist?

However, I'm sure you'd still be perfectly willing to rescue him from us Evil Euro's regardless.

no thanks. You can have him :p

You guys over react. I mean come on so waht he is pardoning himself ofsuch acts. The Geneva convention usually allies during war times and to soldiers. Spies do not count under this. Also torture is one of the best ways to get people to talk when they wont. Almost all countries torture to get information but no one but america admits it.

Don't be stupid. The Geneva Conventions apply to civilians, soldiers and other combatants in war and peacetime.

Also, yeah, if someone is keeping quiet, and you torture them, they'll talk all right. If by "talking" you mean screaming in agony and/or saying something, anything to get thier torturer to stop. Especially total bull****. Torture is a terrible method of information extraction.

And how dare you insinuate that "almost all countries torture". How dare you. You may love the idea of electrifying someones gonads, but many national governments, surprisingly, do actually abide by UN conventions, especially regarding the treatment of soldiers and civilians during wartime, and especially when it comes to torture, so that they do no put thier citizens and soldiers in danger of torture and atrocities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc

This reminds me of a quote by Freidrich Nietzsche:
"Be careful that when you stare into the abyss, the abyss does not stare back into you"

For someone who was so adamant about ending the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, you'd think that Bush would have more respect for the civil liberties and freedoms that he is supposedly defending.

Maybe I am just in a crabby mood; can anyone possibly justify a reason why Bush would need to pardon himself for war crimes? How does that make him any better than the tyrants that he deposed in the first place?


What war crimes has Bush been responsible for anyway? Surely not the war in Iraq or Afganhistan.

It's clear that he didn't order the Abu-Graib stuff.

Why is everyone making a big deal out of what is clearly nothing?

I will right now retro-actively pardon myself for the murder that I (didn't) commit yesterday. There you go, now I'm teh ebil alongside Bush.

That you're all acting strange, even for NS loonies.

Que George W. Bush está haciendo qué?!?!?!?!?!?!:eek:
That man's a megalomaniac, and someone should kill him, like, right away. Any snipers here want to take the offer?:D

Have you considered seeing a psychiatrist? Perhaps doing something about you clearly homocidal tendencies would be a good thing.

What war crimes has Bush been responsible for anyway? Surely not the war in Iraq or Afganhistan.

It's clear that he didn't order the Abu-Graib stuff.


He doesn't have to have personally ordered those atrocities to be carried out, it would be a war crime for him to either be complicit, that is he knew they were going on/had happened and did nothing to stop them or prevent them from happening again.

Also, technically it is a war crime to wage an aggresive war, which was a charge brought against the Nazi's at Nuremberg.

Also, yeah, if someone is keeping quiet, and you torture them, they'll talk all right. If by "talking" you mean screaming in agony and/or saying something, anything to get thier torturer to stop. Especially total bull****. Torture is a terrible method of information extraction.

You're absolutely right.

Except that by "terrible" I'm sure you meant "terribly effective", it's ok, typos happen.

(Yes, I'm patronizing you, yes, I realize that it was not a typo.)

You're absolutely right.

Except that by "terrible" I'm sure you meant "terribly effective", it's ok, typos happen.

(Yes, I'm patronizing you, yes, I realize that it was not a typo.)

Then don't. Unless you have something constructive to add, don't bother typing.

He doesn't have to have personally ordered those atrocities to be carried out, it would be a war crime for him to either be complicit, that is he knew they were going on/had happened and did nothing to stop them or prevent them from happening again.

Yeah, Bush is teh ebil, and therefore must have been complicit.

Also, technically it is a war crime to wage an aggresive war, which was a charge brought against the Nazi's at Nuremberg.

Bush also gassed Jews and such? That was also a charge at Nuremberg.

Also, the Irag War was not done without provokation, the problem is that the UN should've stood behind it's own policy, rather than back out because they would rather exploit Iraq for money, but apparently that is what is morally right these days....

Then don't. Unless you have something constructive to add, don't bother typing.

Umm, I was adding constructively actually...

You'll note I made a correction to increase the accuracy of my quoted post.

You're absolutely right.

Except that by "terrible" I'm sure you meant "terribly effective", it's ok, typos happen.

(Yes, I'm patronizing you, yes, I realize that it was not a typo.)

There's an old saying we have among dissident and apostate Catholics like my family.

"The Inquisitor never finds an innocent man"

Ponder on this for a moment.

There's an old saying we have among dissident and apostate Catholics like my family.

"The Inquisitor never finds an innocent man"

Ponder on this for a moment.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating torture as such, merely amending the statement that it is ineffective.

Yeah, Bush is teh ebil, and therefore must have been complicit.

And when did I say he was complicit? I'm just furious that he would never be able to be prosecuted and convicted if it was found by a war crimes tribunal that he was.

Bush also gassed Jews and such? That was also a charge at Nuremberg.

It's called a precedent. The Nazi's where charged with, and convicted of planning and waging an aggressive war. This established "planning and waging aggressive war" as a war crime future suspects could be charged with.

Also, the Irag War was not done without provokation, the problem is that the UN should've stood behind it's own policy, rather than back out because they would rather exploit Iraq for money, but apparently that is what is morally right these days....

Do you mean the UN Oil for Food program scandal? Yeah, that had nothing to do with UN officials, and everything to do with the US and European Oil companies who actually traded with Iraq.

So NATO's war in the Balkans was a war crime?

I'm not really confident enough to definitively give an answer to that question.

So NATO’s war in the Balkans was a war crime?
I’m sure it’d be classed by the UN/ICC as a ‘humanitarian action’.

Also, technically it is a war crime to wage an aggresive war, which was a charge brought against the Nazi's at Nuremberg.

So NATO's war in the Balkans was a war crime?

Anyone got a link to the actual bill?

I’m sure it’d be classed by the UN/ICC as a ‘humanitarian action’.

Humanitarian to who? The people who got bombed?

Humanitarian to who? The people who got bombed?

The Kosovan Albanians, I guess.

You guys over react. I mean come on so waht he is pardoning himself ofsuch acts. The Geneva convention usually allies during war times and to soldiers. Spies do not count under this.
Also torture is one of the best ways to get people to talk when they wont.

The experiance of experts and first handers disagree.

Almost all countries torture to get information but no one but america admits it.


Prove it.

I'm thinking special forces to get Mr. Bush back, and then an invasion to put whatever country back in its place.


Ahhh yes, the old might makes right argument. Clearly, might supersedes any form of justice.


You know what? I'd volunteer for that operation. No Americans in "international courts', please. We have our own.

You don't have courts. You have farces where rulings typically go in favor of the rich and the influential and are ignored when they don't.

I am actually quite hoping that the next president will seize Bush and all his cronies as "enemies of the state" using all those laws they passed over the years, and disappear them forever. The irony would be delicious.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating torture as such, merely amending the statement that it is ineffective.





I love when righties make outragous claims like "torture works!" when people who have first hand knowledge on both sides of the waterboard say it doesnt give reliable information.


The arrogance of conservatives never ceases to amaze.

So NATO's war in the Balkans was a war crime?

stopping a nation from committing genocide is an aggressive act?

This reminds me of a quote by Freidrich Nietzsche:
"Be careful that when you stare into the abyss, the abyss does not stare back into you"

I've heard that quote several times now. Can someone please explain what it means?

stopping a nation from committing genocide is an aggressive act?

I don't think it would work if a nation wasn't aggressive about it.
But I know what you mean.

There's an old saying we have among dissident and apostate Catholics like my family.

"The Inquisitor never finds an innocent man"

Ponder on this for a moment.

The problem with stories like this is that plenty of people, after very real pondering, will conclude that reinstating the Inquisition will remove all the guilty from society. Sometimes you can't leave anything up to misinterpretation.

I think Europe needs to invade us and preform a "regiem change", rush Bush through a simply symbolic trial, quickly hand out a death sentence, and publically hang him.


ie, exactly what we did in Iraq to Saddam for war crimes.


*awaits NM and HSH to come in and defend Bush's actions*

I don't think Europe has what it would take to invade the US. I doubt they'd survive long in the US territorial waters. If the European forces were to attempt to go through Canada, they probably wouldn't make it out of New England without a massive counter-attack and insurgency. Same if they tried to go through Mexico, but they'd probably be stopped in the Southwest.

Gee and people say Fox News is biased, watching that segment CNN is worse

Gee and people say Fox News is biased, watching that segment CNN is worse

This guy is a pundit. His job is to be biased. Thats like using Bill O'riely as your sole source for Fox's bias.

I would pardon myself if I could.

Gee and people say Fox News is biased, watching that segment CNN is worse

Well that's probably because your mind has been warped by right-wing doubletalk. The usual cure is reality.

I've heard that quote several times now. Can someone please explain what it means?

It's a variation of the whole "becoming that which you fight/hate" statement. Here's a real world example.

American public statement: We're fighting injustice, dictatorships, tyranny, etc, etc
American action: Enacts tyrannical laws, excuses itself from unjust acts, etc, etc, in the claim of above.

Seems to be fairly self explanatory when it's in the original form. I had it in my sig for a while, so that's prolly where you saw it.

I've heard that quote several times now. Can someone please explain what it means?

It's a misquote. The actual quote is as follows.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
It's from Beyond Good and Evil.

so Copper Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Green) is okay now?

I would certainly hate to be of a darker skin colour than ghost white right now...

I don't think Europe has what it would take to invade the US. I doubt they'd survive long in the US territorial waters. If the European forces were to attempt to go through Canada, they probably wouldn't make it out of New England without a massive counter-attack and insurgency. Same if they tried to go through Mexico, but they'd probably be stopped in the Southwest.

you make the mistake that its only Europe that wants your blood :)

This guy is a pundit. His job is to be biased. Thats like using Bill O'riely as your sole source for Fox's bias.

Which I think some people do, thanks for informing me

Which I think some people do, thanks for informing me

Anyone who uses that as their arguement for Fox's obvious bias should get kicked in the nads for not knowing what a pundit does. There are so many legit arguements for Fox, you shouldnt have to rely on attacking the talking heads.

The problem I and many others have with Fox is that they are blatant liars and hypocrites. "Fair and Balanced" and the "No Spin Zone" only make sense in an Orwellian inversion of language.

The problem I and many others have with Fox is that they are blatant liars and hypocrites. "Fair and Balanced" and the "No Spin Zone" only make sense in an Orwellian inversion of language.

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/5/5e/Propaganda_foxnews.jpg

It's a misquote. The actual quote is as follows.


It's from Beyond Good and Evil.

I understand the first part, about fighting monsters. But I'm still unclear on what the abyss is.
I'm usually not this stupid, but Nietzsche in general confuses me.

The CIA or the FBI are sooo going to pwn a lot of posters on this thread :eek:

(Reads thread, crumples it up, throws into pile of other 10,000 anti-Bush threads)

Does anyone have something that is of substance? You know, something different?

I understand the first part, about fighting monsters. But I'm still unclear on what the abyss is.
I'm usually not this stupid, but Nietzsche in general confuses me.

There are multiple ways to interpret it. One is as a restatement of the previous line. Another is that he meant that looking at horror perpetrated by others all too often shows us something about ourselves.

There are multiple ways to interpret it. One is as a restatement of the previous line. Another is that he meant that looking at horror perpetrated by others all too often shows us something about ourselves.

So examining something like genocide can show us our own capacity for evil? That makes sense.
I enjoy reading Nietzsche, but I can't say whether I agree with him because I can never tell when he's being sarcastic, exaggerating, or being genuine. Kind of like some of the posters on this forum.

so Copper Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Green) is okay now?

I would certainly hate to be of a darker skin colour than ghost white right now...



you make the mistake that its only Europe that wants your blood :)

Well, any large ship/vehicle/troop movements towards North America would be noticed by US spy satellites (taking out the satellites with ASAT missiles would be a huge tip-off that the US was about to be invaded). It'd be hard to plan and execute an invasion of the US with enough troops and equipment, while still avoiding notice. And don't forget the insurgency. Nothing brings Americans together quicker than being attacked. Considering that there's approximately 80 million firearms owners located in the US, we could probably slow down an invasion enough for our military to launch a counter-attack.

Would a lot of lives be lost on both sides? Undoubtedly. Would it be worth it (in the cost of lives, materials, and expenditures) to get so few people? I seriously doubt it.

So examining something like genocide can show us our own capacity for evil? That makes sense.
I enjoy reading Nietzsche, but I can't say whether I agree with him because I can never tell when he's being sarcastic, exaggerating, or being genuine. Kind of like some of the posters on this forum.

*comes clean*

Okay, I admit it. I am Nietzsche...

(Reads thread, crumples it up, throws into pile of other 10,000 anti-Bush threads)

Does anyone have something that is of substance? You know, something different?

So it's OK for politicians to pardon themselves for crimes committed while in office?

So... say, it would be just dandy if Clinton rounded up and killed 1000 random Americans for the heck of it and then got away with it because she pardoned herself?

Pardoning lets you pardon any laws, so it could in theory be used for murder, so setting a precedent is Not a good thing.

Also, the Irag War was not done without provokation...

And what provocation would that be?

*comes clean*

Okay, I admit it. I am Nietzsche...

I wasn't thinking of you in particular, but now that you mention it...

I wasn't thinking of you in particular, but now that you mention it...

I've just been chillin' for the past century, fly fishing in Montana. But now my secret is revealed. I am an immortal, and the only way to do me in is to chop off my head.

Wait a minute.

I shouldn't have told you that.

*flees*

And what provocation would that be?

Not sharing their oil?

*runs*

How the fuck can you pre-emptively pardon yourself?

Btw, that video is at least a month old. Any updates on it?

It's rather obvious that this happened before the Democrats took office.Obvious, you say? That would be how he missed it.

Not sharing their oil?

lol, that's probably about as reasonable an answer as I'm going to get.

Or let the English dig up a very old law that would allow for him to be thrown in the Tower and then be tortured and publicly beheaded.

So fucking seconded.

You're right, that does kinda catapult the propaganda, doesn't it?
Was that the love child of Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly? That video link that South Lizasauria just had up?

Well, yes, but we were STILL at war with Truman. Hence he is the last president during whose reign we were at war. My that was an awkward sentence.

Probably not as awkward as comprehending the attempt at logic in a Bush-supporting sentence at this point. :(

Actually FDR as we were already at war when Truman took over.

Well, yes, but we were STILL at war with Truman. Hence he is the last president during whose reign we were at war. My that was an awkward sentence.

Or let the English dig up a very old law that would allow for him to be thrown in the Tower and then be tortured and publicly beheaded.


Personally, if I was in charge of Bush's execution, I'd want to implement the execution device me and my friend invented in high school. It's a really sweet combination of an iron maiden and a crucifix.

Personally, if I was in charge of Bush's execution, I'd want to implement the execution device me and my friend invented in high school. It's a really sweet combination of an iron maiden and a crucifix.
Don't forget the drawing/quartering. I have a ratchet jack-pike that's still a bit barbed and rusty after a long winter that would nicely fill the position.

Yeah, Bush is teh ebil, and therefore must have been complicit.

I think the argument was more "Bush is the LEADER OF THE NATION, therefore he was either complicit or criminally ignorant and still responsible".

Bush also gassed Jews and such? That was also a charge at Nuremberg.

That is some excellent logic at work. The point is made that one crime prosecuted during the Nuremberg trials was a crime that Bush could also be charged with: therefore EVERY crime brought up at the trials is something Bush did. Astounding.

Also, the Irag War was not done without provokation, the problem is that the UN should've stood behind it's own policy, rather than back out because they would rather exploit Iraq for money, but apparently that is what is morally right these days....

As opposed to the current administration, which is exploiting Iraw for... lollipops? ??

Or trying to introduce logic into a thread that mentions his name... You would think after going a few round with kindergartners I would know better than to argue with irrational people.
Hope springs eternal. Besides, it's cathartic sometimes.

Probably not as awkward as comprehending the attempt at logic in a Bush-supporting sentence at this point. :(

Or trying to introduce logic into a thread that mentions his name... You would think after going a few round with kindergartners I would know better than to argue with irrational people.

As far as I know, no Americans can. We haven't signed the International Court thingy.

Hmmm, so how come you guys gets to be judges and prosecutors at the end at WW2? Or is the Nuremberg Trial is a separate thing?

Can someone enlighten me, please?