02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI only skimmed through Horn's closing arguments, and I haven't looked at Jahrreiss' at all because I was concentrating on Ribbentrop. But the self-defence argument was used more by others, I think. Ribbentrop mostly tried to convince the court (rather unsuccessfully) that he had tried all the time to avoid a war, and that he wasn't involved in military decisions. So the self-defence argument becomes a side issue in his case. I may have a look at Jahrreiss' final speech tomorrow.
You have my pity that you read Ribbentrop's testimony; from the sources I have it is described as unbelievably turgid. As the premise was a legal argument, perhaps a more explicit statement may be contained in defense counsel's closing arguments. Horn was Ribbentrop's I believe, although most of the general principles of law were contained in Jahrreiss'. ...[text shortened]... s a good Index, anything relating to Count 2 and defense motions might be a more rich vein.
04 Apr 06
Originally posted by uzlessWe don't want nuclear weapons: we want peaceful energy sources. And it is our right to get them.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm
maybe the Iranians want the nukes so they can sell oil in euros without being invaded like Iraq was?
04 Apr 06
Originally posted by Rajk999You have completely missed what is happening. Nobody is selling anything to Iran. Iran's own intelligence, which Americans do not respect, has allowed them to strat building plants themselves. Since America and the West don't like the idea of Iran being smart, they are trying to abuse and opress them but not allowing them to build these plants.
Nope .. nobody said that. What I heard is that no country is (openly) willing to sell them the technology.
04 Apr 06
Originally posted by uzlessI guess no one actually read this article based on the posts so far in this thread...this article basically says you all are missing the larger issue here. It's not about nukes/technology or anything else that basic.
[b]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm
It's about maintaining an empire through economics. No one care to dispute the article? Where's all the yanks?
Maybe no one understands the article?? surely someone does!
04 Apr 06
Originally posted by uzlessI read it and understood it but there are some questions. You think you can answer them ? Like, proof that trade in oil swiched from Euros or whatever to $US after the start of the war in 2003. Also the author said somthing really stupid .. about Bush having the option to print more money to buy Iraqi oil !!
I guess no one actually read this article based on the posts so far in this thread...this article basically says you all are missing the larger issue here. It's not about nukes/technology or anything else that basic.
It's about maintaining an empire through economics. No one care to dispute the article? Where's all the yanks?
Maybe no one understands the article?? surely someone does!