Can someone tell me what Nuremberg was for?

[St Leo]

Can someone tell me what Nuremberg was for?

Nuremberg is a city in Germany. Cities exist for inhabitation purposes. Therefore, Nuremberg exists for inhabitation purposes.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Demerzel]

Sheesh this is as bad as princebimz's slapstick attempt at pro-war. Totally irrelevent comparison. When the facts just don't work for you, just edit them/make them up!

Rational discussion - good
Meaningless trolling - bad.

0 / 10. *yawn*

[uh Clem]

I'd love to see Saddam Hussein on trial. A public trial that is, with the right to counsel & cross-examination, etc, and above all, in a genuinely impartial court. His answers when he was asked about when and where he first started to acquire all that nasty stuff would be well worth hearing, I'm sure.

Osama's testimony would probably be fascinating as well, if he were ever on trial.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by UberKruX
nuremberg was a WAR CRIMES tribunal WAR is not a WAR CRIME. subtle difference.

Wrong.

"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."
-Nuremberg Judgement

[Tis I]

my .000002 cents...

i don't think the author was comparing the current US plans to Nazi germany nor was he implying that Saddam was not guilty.

The initial post brings up the fact that in Nuremburg, the charges against Nazi leaders included "crimes against peace":

“Crimes against peace” was the planning and pre-party of aggressive war. This also included any financial, physical, or ideological attempt to wage war. The leadership of the country as well as the armed forces and the finance, there of made this charge also valid to all of the defendants. (Smith, K.)

The US( and indeed every country which has prosecuted an agressive war) is guilty of these same crimes. While the crimes of the Nazi go far beyond crimes of peace( and its debated wheter "crimes of peace" are really crimes), it still remains somewhat hypocritical that the US engages in part of what it condemned the nazis for.

[DinoDoc]

As long as we are throwing around relics from WWII: Elie Wiesel's opinion on Iraq

/me still waits for an answer to the question he asked earlier

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
As long as we are throwing around relics from WWII: Elie Wiesel's opinion on Iraq

So what to it? I told you the Israel lobby supports the war. (Or does that mean you are coming over to my viewpoint?)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
So what to it? I told you the Israel lobby supports the war.

You're quite the stereotypical Austrian, aren't you? You wouldn't happen to sport a mustache, would you?

/me is still waiting

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

You're quite the stereotypical Austrian, aren't you?

You're quite the stereotypical Troll, aren´t you?

[DinoDoc]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Tis I]

The following were convicted of "crimes against peace"

Doenitz

Frick

Funk

Goering

Hess

Jodl

Neurath

Raeder

Ribbentrop

Rosenberg

Seyss-Inquart  

None was convicted solely for "crimes against peace", sorry about the lack of first names

[ciaran]

jim panse sez:

Can anyone out there explain to me why the US-led Military Tribunal accused and convicted/sentenced the elite of the 3rd Reich for planning and preparing a war of aggression, for the realization of a war of aggression and Crimes against Humanity and now the US is doing exact the same things.

Your post is kind of like an ad, isn't it jim? Why don't you make your point instead of drawing this odd unconnected issue? Yes, US was actually accused formally of terrorism (remember Iran-Contra?) and maybe the US is even breaking international laws, or whatever. What is your point? Life is so great here because the US enforces its concept of full spectrum dominance. Money rules. So what? Did you want to see some formal tribunal achieve nothing against the world's richest nation? Only a waste of money, right?

Remember that you saw notable 3rd Reichers in Nuremberg only because Germany lost the war and was poor. Did you actually fall for some "justice" side-concept that accompanies war?

Oh yeah, we rescued some jews too. But guess what? The position of US dominance was forever altered in the world. How's that for noble intentions?

ciaran

[jim panse]

US-led? Well, only if you ignore those other three countries...

And whose idea was it .... ?

I can also remeber FDR´s idea of executing 50.000 german officers for nothing but being german in Yalta.
Uncle Joe smiled and Churchill said nothing.

What drugs are you on?

Sports in general and Athletics in paricular

Seriously, invoking "war crimes" because you don't agree with another Gulf War just makes you look silly. Worse, you trivialise the seriousness of the term 'war crimes'. Comparing a terribly one-sided war that hasn't happened yet with victors of war impaling/torturing/murdering/eviscerating/gasing innocent civilians makes you look like a complete tool. Get some therapy

Yes, I do not agree with any new war. I also do NOT want to trivialise the crimes committed by Germans. But I do think that your point of view is far too simple.
How many Iraqis have died in 1991? 70.000? 200.000?

To it seems now even more that you Americans see the world like black-white, good-evil not recognising that live is there in between.
(And don´t feel to offended. We all know Bush´s "whether with us or against us").

i don't think the author was comparing the current US plans to Nazi germany nor was he implying that Saddam was not guilty.

That´s my intention. I just wanted to ask why Wars of Aggression have been outlawed in Nuremberg. I just don´t get why the US invented the Atlantic Charter and the UN Charter condemning such things and doing now the same. You can never explain this with raison d´état.

Your post is kind of like an ad, isn't it jim? Why don't you make your point instead of drawing this odd unconnected issue? Yes, US was actually accused formally of terrorism (remember Iran-Contra?) and maybe the US is even breaking international laws, or whatever. What is your point? Life is so great here because the US enforces its concept of full spectrum dominance. Money rules. So what? Did you want to see some formal tribunal achieve nothing against the world's richest nation? Only a waste of money, right?

I know what the US has done against Nazi Germany. I know that I can live in peace in Austria because of the outcome of WW2. I also know that the US has defended Europe during the Cold War. For this I´m thankful.
My point was to make you think of the condemned War of Aggression of Nuremberg and Bush´s plan to attack Iraq. Nothing else. I don´t wanted this to become a revisionist debate.

But to me your

Money rules. So what?

is not a real justification. If this is your opinion, I´ll have to tell you that in my eyes this is poor.

Oh yeah, we rescued some jews too. But guess what? The position of US dominance was forever altered in the world. How's that for noble intentions?

Oh yeah, you will again rescue the Israeli people. But I tell you something else: The position of US dominance will be forever altered in the world if Bush starts this war. And if he starts this war, I would be deeply disappointed if he won´t go after North Korea after Iraq.

[Q Classic]

And if he starts this war, I would be deeply disappointed if he won´t go after North Korea after Iraq.

i would be deeply disappointed if he did. the destruction of the iraqi regime can be contained with minimal loss, i believe.
any attack and any destruction of the nkorean regime would wreak havoc in east asia; indeed, odds are that two nations, skorea and japan, would be severely injured, with skorea suffering the burden; the resulting unification of korea would end up with a crippled korean economy; thus, leading to yet another asian financial crisis, one that i honestly think might result in another world recession, if not depression.

[ciaran]

jim panse sez:

is not a real justification.

It didn't sound like a justification, did it? I am simply stating the facts. I didn't mistake your initial comment as revisionist. What I am saying is that what YOU believe Nuremberg to be-- the conviction of war criminals, or something similarly noble-- is simply the result of a poorer nation being destroyed by a richer nation. This is the reality of the world we live in... and by "crying" about war crimes or whatever other moral cause you want to assign to war, you are stating the obvious. Yes, nations do very bad things... and they get away with it.

As far as the threat to US world dominance goes, time will prove you wrong. The last thing that I am worried about as a US citizen is the rest of the world. The fact that my country provides me with a lifestyle to afford this manner of blatant disregard is why I believe this country is so great.

If I don't even want to talk the grocery store clerk bagging my groceries, why in hell would I ever care about some starving people in Iraq? Sounds harsh, but it is an accurate representation of the American mindset.

ciaran