Can We Sue Germany for WWII?

[InquiringMind]

They were called war reparations and the first world war ones caused the second world war indirectly.

Yeah, I thought that's what we learned from WWI.  Trying to get reparations after a war only prolongs the bitterness and the sense of victimization, which will lead to another war.  Which is what I think Congress wants, thanks to defense contractor lobbying.  If you recall, John Boehner criticized President Obama for being an "anti-war president."  

And if Congress is trying to give people good feelz before an election, that demonstrates how much they live in their own reality that is disconnected from the rest of us.  Did they really think we wouldn't see it as just a political stunt?

[Whateverist]

Personally I've always resented the way the Mongol horde under Genghis Khan imposition my forebears. Who can I sue?

[Whateverist]

This seems to create a lot of problems.  What do you think?

Asinine legislation.

Wait until some bunch of scumbags sue us and then listen to those congressional scumbags whine about it.

But should we expect reciprocity given our obvious exceptionalism?  

[abaris]

Well, they used it for it's intended purpose.  It's a pesticide and defoliant.  The idea was to remove the canopy that was providing cover, and any food crops the enemy relied on.  We'd been using those chemicals (and still do) agriculturally since the 50's, we hadn't made the link in our own country either in all that time.

Yes, that was worded poorly. Of course it was used in it's intended way. But at that time nobody knew about it's side effects. Not that decades after people would still have health problems. The right thing would be to own up to that. But I don't hold my breath for any state to do that.

[LastPoet]

I should sue jesus. My sins are my own and its none of his business to go out and forgive everyone.

[LastPoet]

I hear his dad runs with alot of money.

[Minimalist]

I almost LOL'd when I read this quote from Chuck Schumer.

"Schumer said it is false to claim that the bill encourages retaliation or litigation against the United States.

"We're not busy training people to blow up buildings and kill innocent civilians in other countries," Schumer said."


https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-approv...itics.html

Really, Chuck?  Are you that fucking blind?

41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground

The drones came for Ayman Zawahiri on 13 January 2006, hovering over a village in Pakistan called Damadola. Ten months later, they came again for the man who would become al-Qaida’s leader, this time in Bajaur.

Eight years later, Zawahiri is still alive. Seventy-six children and 29 adults, according to reports after the two strikes, are not.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014...-kill-1147


Talk about a fucking can of worms!

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, that was worded poorly. Of course it was used in it's intended way. But at that time nobody knew about it's side effects. Not that decades after people would still have health problems. The right thing would be to own up to that. But I don't hold my breath for any state to do that.

Neither do I.  

I almost LOL'd when I read this quote from Chuck Schumer.

"Schumer said it is false to claim that the bill encourages retaliation or litigation against the United States.

"We're not busy training people to blow up buildings and kill innocent civilians in other countries," Schumer said."

In theater range ncos jobs consisted of nothing -but- training people who would eventually become insurgents and/or isis. Not all of them, not even a majority...but you'd always get a few...and it made your heart just sink. Teaching someone how to properly conduct urban warfare is flag and ideology neutral. So, you hope the current crop is a bunch of "good guys"....hope in one hand, shit in the other.

[Minimalist]

The fucking morons.............................


http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/day-afte...er-11-law/

Day after overriding veto, Congress expresses concern over new September 11 law

What is known in the trade as "Ready, Fire, Aim."

U.S. lawmakers on Thursday expressed doubts about Sept. 11 legislation they forced on President Barack Obama, saying the new law allowing lawsuits against Saudi Arabia could be narrowed to ease concerns about its effect on Americans abroad.
A day after a rare overwhelming rejection of a presidential veto, the first during Obama’s eight years in the White House, the Republican leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives opened the door to fixing the law as they blamed Obama, a Democrat, for not consulting them adequately.
“I do think is worth further discussing,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, acknowledging that there could be “potential consequences” of the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act,” known as JASTA.
House Speaker Paul Ryan said Congress might have to “fix” the legislation to protect U.S. service members in particular.

A truly amazing collection of douchebags on both sides of the aisle.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The only possible good I see coming from this legislation is the hope that we can get sworn testimony into the public sphere about the deeper connections of the attack.

Not that I think that'll pan out ... an attorney will invoke "national security" and that will be that, unless there's a judge with some spine hearing the arguments.