3 ms·

Not even remotely the same situation. Nuremberg was about officers delivering and obeying direct orders to kill civilians and commit war crimes. Powell simply

Not even remotely the same situation. Nuremberg was about officers delivering and obeying direct orders to kill civilians and commit war crimes. Powell simply delivered a speech to get international support for a war the US was going to fight no matter what. He had nothing to do with the war crimes.

LennyWhiteJr 5y ago
cope
drcongo 5y ago
He was just following orders.
geofft 5y ago
The US wasn't going to fight it "no matter what." The US was going to fight it if the US government was reasonably capable of doing so, which depended on political support at home, the ability to find allies, and functioning internal logistics. All of these things he had a hand in. Suppose he fled the US for some neutral country, resigned his position, and made a public announcement that he knew that the case for war was fraudulent and that the international community had an obligation to stop the US. What would have happened? Suppose he simply resigned to spend more time with his family the night before his speech to the UN. Suppose he did not decide (as he did in real life) that he was going to support the president in waging war without the support of the UN, and he told the world as much. Suppose he insisted on having more time to review the material himself before making the speech to the UN. There were a number of times where he could have changed the course of history. Yes, it would have come at significant personal cost to himself and perhaps significant embarrassment of America on the world stage. If you're unwilling to do that for a raise, sure, that seems reasonable; if you're unwilling to do that to prevent tens of thousands of deaths, you are absolutely morally culpable for those deaths. The invasion of Iraq on false premises was itself a war crime, and the killings of Iraqi soldiers was just as immoral as killing civilians. Quoting one of the rulings at Nuremberg: "War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, 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."
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

LennyWhiteJr 5y ago

cope

drcongo 5y ago

He was just following orders.

geofft 5y ago

The US wasn't going to fight it "no matter what." The US was going to fight it if the US government was reasonably capable of doing so, which depended on political support at home, the ability to find allies, and functioning internal logistics. All of these things he had a hand in. Suppose he fled the US for some neutral country, resigned his position, and made a public announcement that he knew that the case for war was fraudulent and that the international community had an obligation to stop the US. What would have happened? Suppose he simply resigned to spend more time with his family the night before his speech to the UN. Suppose he did not decide (as he did in real life) that he was going to support the president in waging war without the support of the UN, and he told the world as much. Suppose he insisted on having more time to review the material himself before making the speech to the UN. There were a number of times where he could have changed the course of history. Yes, it would have come at significant personal cost to himself and perhaps significant embarrassment of America on the world stage. If you're unwilling to do that for a raise, sure, that seems reasonable; if you're unwilling to do that to prevent tens of thousands of deaths, you are absolutely morally culpable for those deaths. The invasion of Iraq on false premises was itself a war crime, and the killings of Iraqi soldiers was just as immoral as killing civilians. Quoting one of the rulings at Nuremberg: "War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, 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."

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]