Simon Wiesenthal died.

They are not war criminals and comparing them with german war criminals is absurd.

take care

Perhaps you are right. i was just trying to place into discussion the point of view of, say...iraqi people?

The worse thing that Nurenberg and other trials did was to confuse some notions. Of course, one could say that those american you mentioned did start a war and this is a war crime, but they are not guilty of genocide that is most people think about whan talking about war crimes.
Many wars were fought after ww 2, but none of them was declared. Side effect of confusing political standards in defining war.

US guys named above... WInners are heroes, loosers are criminals. Partizans/ freedom fighters... versus terrorists... British empire winns in this history, anyway, in whatevere image (USA) is revealed. Slaves, colonys...

Iama

Starting a war is not a war crime.

well considering that countries like USA, China and Israel criticized and refused to take part in it or allow their citizens to be subject of the International Criminal Court in Hague it is appropriate to believe that these countries have no intention of pacifist activities in the future. this implies premeditation, which is another characteristic of a crime.

Please get back to the original topic and leave the 2nd Gulf War for the appropiate one.

Form what I read things were more serious than simpathies for the Iron Guard. Paulescu wrote several anti-Semite works. Obviously this has nothing to do with his descovery of the insulin, which also helped save Jewish lives afterwards. The man, however, was an anti-Semite.

As a question of morality: should some people deny his wonderfull discovery just because he was anysemite ? Shouldn't be the two issues be dealt separatly ? Both informations are true: he was antisemite but he also discovered insuline, why deny one true fact - is this the right way to do ?

The fact that some countries do not adhere to the International Criminal Court doesnt make them "criminal" or non-pacific. There are other international frameworks which supervise states' actions, and under their provisions, choosing not to adhere to a treaty is an exercise of sovereignity, not criminal intent.

take care

This presents which is the most important side of the man. Aparently being an antisemite was considered too big of a crime, that not even millions of lives saved by the use of Peniciline could ever repay.

Personally i had no idea until now that he was a antisemite, thanks for the information.

The problem is that one cannot pick and choose what a certain person did during his/her entire life. He/she must be regarded in his/her entirety (N.B. I am talking in general terms here, it's certainly not directed against the case of Dr. Paulescu).
People often tend to disregard this rule of thumb.

See, for example, Marshall Antonescu. Why is he a controversial figure? Exactly because he made good and bad things during his military career, which cannot be separated, to cherry-pick the ones to one's liking.

Or, Hitler. Somebody - I feel quite rightly - said: "had Hitler suddenly died in 1938, he would most probably be remembered today as one of the greatest politicians of the XXth Century".

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on December 15, 2005 07:25 pm

No, like I said, I don't think that he should be denied the discovery of insuline because he was an anti-Semite. However, he should be presented as he was, with bad and good things, but people should think twice before making him a statue.

100% agree on all accounts.

How 'bout a statue for discovering the insuline ? Or at least some credit
I think that's manageable