|
|
|
|
|
|
by rwallace
4317 days ago
|
|
|
So you don't approve of Condoleezza Rice backing the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Okay, I agree with you that the invasion of Iraq was the wrong thing to do. I don't approve of you attacking Dropbox, and Ms. Rice in her capacity as a Dropbox employee, for actions that have nothing to do with the company. Would you like it if I wrote to your employer demanding you be fired because of your actions here? No? You would say, wouldn't you, that your posts on HN have nothing to do with your employer and regardless of what I think of your posts, it would be a dick move on my part to drag your employer into it? Do unto others as you would have done unto you. |
|
|
Ms. Rice, and her associates, were responsible for committing acts of open war on another country and in so doing violated - criminally - much international as well as national law. Charges at the ICC mean something. Such individuals, no matter what, should not be allowed more access to the masses until they have answered for their crimes.
The fact that this is of no consequence to someone who 'publically defends Ms. Rice' may not surprise me. She must answer to crimes against humanity, sir! This is why she should not be associated with the Western worlds growing fascination for documenting itself ..