I'm going to take a moment on behalf of those who disagreed with the Iraqi Bush Adventure. And I'm going to enjoy this moment. It's rare that I make a public point out of it, but it's time to put away the cough syrup and wake up.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein". (Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1089159,00.html))So ... what's the frequency, Kenneth?

You know ... I'm going to go smoke a bowl.

George W. Bush, Jr., is a criminal.

November, 2004 is coming. Y'all know what to do.

Raise a glass for Wendell Phillips.

You have to wonder, though, what's in it for the neos if now is the time to have this debate.

• Burkeman, Oliver and Julian Borger. "War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal." Guardian Unlimited, November 20, 2003. see http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1089159,00.html

I'm sure you have already pigeonholed me as some sort of right-wing radical, but you're way off base. I was opposed to this war as well. Not for all of the reasons that you were, but for reasons of a different nature. I've read many books by people on the ground in Iraq throughout the 90's that swear up and down that Iraq had an active WMD program in place. That was worrisome, but I considered it to be more or Israels place to deal with that. Anyways, I am glad Saddam is gone, but I can't reconcile that with the way the U.S. went about things.

I got lost on a tangent there. Here is the point. The Dems are screwed because at this point their only common theme is Anybody But Bush. ABB. It's all over the left. But does the left have any sense of history? Look at Nixon in 72. Look at Reagan in 84. That's no platform to run on. If the Dems want to be successful they need to get serious and offer solutions, not just sit on the sidelines and point out flaws.

It's like this: Bush is drowning in Iraq and the Dems are too busy arguing over the color of the sand to step on his neck. This is a critical juncture for the Dems. With Florida, Texas, and Cali going Republicrat they are getting desperate. Problem is they are attacking the wrong points. They look like negative nelly's sitting on the sidelines when they should take on the Bush admin head on and challenge them to a fight.

Yes we all know what to do. George W. Bush is getting my vote. And if current trends go on, Reps can look at winning the Senate again (even increasing their number of seats), winning the House again, and winning the White House again. Liberals, kiss my ass. Go sing your United Nations anthem, burn an American flag, claim your welfare check, and kill an unborn child.

With recent reshuffling of the electorate college due to population shifts, Republicans are even more benefitted. If the 2000 election were done with this electorate college, Bush would have won something like 277 to 263. (a bigger majority)

Yes we all know what to do. George W. Bush is getting my vote
Gee they even let Canadians vote now?
Dee Cee

Originally posted by Jerrek

With recent reshuffling of the electorate college due to population shifts, Republicans are even more benefitted. If the 2000 election were done with this electorate college, Bush would have won something like 277 to 263. (a bigger majority)
It is very impressive that they were able to get away with reshufflilng the electoral college to further benefit them and subvert the will of the majority.
The democrats just aren't ruthless enough to be any sort of serious opposition.

We already know you favor the starving of children, and now you're throwing your support behind a war criminal? Can't say any of us are surprised, Jerrek.

Tiassa, that has to be the shortest post that you've made in the past three months.

George W. Bush does have my vote. Why you ask? Because I want Conan O'Brien to make fun of him for another four years.

George W. Bush does have my vote. Why you ask? Because I want Conan O'Brien to make fun of him for another four years.
America is doomed:(
Dee Cee

good grief i'm glad i can convince myself that was a joke otherwise i'd worry....it was a joke right????

Bush should be sent to Iraq with his family .....you know why because in his term he has made more policy towards liberating iraqis than helping Americans get jobs....He will be welcomed there I am sure ....they will greet him in the same manner he greeted them ...with shock and awe sodomizing....He is surely getting Iraqi votes for sure....only the "insurgents" should not be allowed to vote....

:rolleyes: ...

interesting point...
do you think the iraqis would vote bush to power for 2nd term if it was up to them? i think so. with a big majority too.

also as far as "legality" goes... just as any law, just because it's a "law" it doesn't make it divinely right. laws get changed / added all the time.
also whether any laws were broken is open for interpretation.

i think defying 16 UN S.C. resolutions which are binding (just count 1 to 16...or was it 17?) would constitute "breaking the law" and thus making the invasion not only logical but legal, even by UN's beurocratic debating-society rules

Originally posted by otheadp
interesting point...
do you think the iraqis would vote bush to power for 2nd term if it was up to them? i think so. with a big majority too.

Yeap. Just like Palestine is so warm to Isreal occupying their territory, Iraq is happy that a foreign invader is attacking their homes. Otherwise, you have any citation for this?

also as far as "legality" goes... just as any law, just because it's a "law" it doesn't make it divinely right. laws get changed / added all the time.
also whether any laws were broken is open for interpretation.

This debate is open for interpretation? What kind of logic are you using to make this statement? Is the morality of killing innocent peoples also open to interpertation. Lastly, if tomorrow China invades Taiwan out of "fear" and citing pre-emptive strategy would that be right.

i think defying 16 UN S.C. resolutions which are binding (just count 1 to 16...or was it 17?) would constitute "breaking the law" and thus making the invasion not only logical but legal, even by UN's beurocratic debating-society rules

Read those resolutions again. None gave the US the right to go in and start murdering innocents. And evidently now it's clear those resolutions *were* working....cos 'show me the weapons...'

also as far as "legality" goes... just as any law, just because it's a "law" it doesn't make it divinely right.

Then I would assume you would have no qualms if the following things happened:

-The Israeli state is pre-emptively invaded, and destroyed
-Your parents get killed by a crazed gun man... no big whoop (knock one wood)
-You get raped... to bad to sad.

Laws are man's separation from the animal kingdom, if you want to live like the "monkeys" then go ahead. Laws are more necessary then getting rid of Saddam.


i think defying 16 UN S.C. resolutions which are binding (just count 1 to 16...or was it 17?) would constitute "breaking the law" and thus making the invasion not only logical but legal, even by UN's beurocratic debating-society rules

So then the Israeli state, Turkey, Morocco, etc. get to be invaded as well for evading S.C resolutions? Get a grip, and don't tell me "Becausz he got 17" one is enough, that logic would be like letting a killer get away with murder... he only killed one person. :rolleyes: Not even the laws, logic, laws, what's next?

Just like Palestine is so warm to Isreal occupying their territory, Iraq is happy that a foreign invader is attacking their homes. Otherwise, you have any citation for this?
a) there is no "palestine"
b) occupation in itself is not illegal. and there are different types of occupations
c) laws are always open for interpretations. that's why the less ambiguous they're defined, the better... but sometimes the wording is ambiguous, which is why it is open for interpretations

if tomorrow China invades Taiwan out of "fear" and citing pre-emptive strategy would that be right
from their point of view, Taiwan is a breakaway province.. so from their point of view it would be justified. (although i'm pro Taiwan breaking off)

None gave the US the right to go in and start murdering innocents
in case you haven't figured it out, in wars there is collateral damage. as heartless as it sounds, and i do hate the term, it is part of reality. get with the program.

The Israeli state is pre-emptively invaded, and destroyed
obviously i don't want israel to be invaded... it would be better to be friends than fight. but if israel was an imminent threat and was preemptively attacked (not a cowardly surprise attack like before) i wouldn't like it but i'd say it's logical.

-Your parents get killed by a crazed gun man... no big whoop (knock one wood)
-You get raped... to bad to sad.

:confused:
what if your parents get killed by a crazed gunman, no big "whoop" (nock on wood)
....what if you get raped?...too bad so sad

So then the Israeli state, Turkey, Morocco, etc. get to be invaded as well for evading S.C resolutions
whether israel broke any S.C. resolutions is a separate discussion. (do me a favour and stick to the subject)
but as far as turkey and morocco, it depends on the severity of the offense and on the circumstances. every case is treated differently.

don't tell me "Becausz he got 17". one is enough
repeat offenders get treated more harshly in any legal system

Here is the point. The Dems are screwed because at this point their only common theme is Anybody But Bush. ABB. It's all over the left. But does the left have any sense of history? Look at Nixon in 72. Look at Reagan in 84. That's no platform to run on. If the Dems want to be successful they need to get serious and offer solutions, not just sit on the sidelines and point out flaws.My general diagnosis is that you're pretty much correct. But I'm watching the development of this issue with the DNC centralizing the candidate selection process. States are canceling their Democratic primaries, which signifies to me that the DNC in general and Mr. McAuliffe in particular do not trust their own Democratic-affiliated voters. In general, I find this rather quite disturbing.

There is a dim hope for the Democrats that is fast fading. For a while it had been a good idea to keep the field wide open. Neither Sharpton nor Moseley-Braun are there specifically to give the party a black face, though it does help. Rather, each fulfills a specific role in fleshing out the Democratic message; I'll spare the details as that's dissolving. Graham was the first to go, and he should have been, though I think there's an outside possibility someone will see him as VP material. I can't believe the committee is actually thinking of packaging Dean. I'd rather send Moseley-Braun out there on principle if the Democrats are going to get slaughtered that way. (If they're going down, they ought to make Bush trash-talk a black woman before it happens; the gaffe would be ... beyond spectacular when it finally happened.) And the General has stuffed his hat not into the ring but up his yang. The run is over for Clark as far as I can tell; but I can certainly be surprised on that one if the committee is in charge. The scary side is if the DNC is shutting out the voters in order to package Kerry or--gasp!--Lieberman. Who else? Gephardt? Is Gephardt running? Even if he is, he isn't.

In the end, the best-case scenario is that McAuliffe and the committee are coordinating for a timed "coming out party" for Senator Edwards. His poll performance is inexplicably low, but he seems comfortable being quirky and dark-horse (in the tradition of running before you announce, Senator Edwards fulfilled an autumn, 2002 promise to Jon Stewart and announced his candidacy at the top of an edition of The Daily Show) and building a rather impressive media catalog of sound-bites, warm smiles, and dignified sanity.

So perhaps next spring, Edwards might finally arrive where he belongs, in the spotlight. He's young, he's better-looking than Bush, is capable of sounding infinitely smarter than Bush, and may be ... exactly ... what Democrats were thinking when they decided they were stuck with the self-destructing robot from Rotunda Wars.

I don't know why, but a Jimmy Buffet song is running through my head ....

As the son of a son of a sailor,
I went out on the sea for adventure,
Expanding ther view of the captain and crew_
Like a man just released from indenture.

As a dreamer of dreams and a travelin' man,
I have chalked up many a mile.
Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks,
And I've learned much from both of their styles.

And I tells ya ... If I could actually draw the connection for you between "Son of a Son of a Sailor (http://margaritaville.com/discography/SonOfaSailor.htm)" and Prince Albert ... well, I'd be a rich man by now.

Senator Edwards ... keep your eye on him. And also the primaries (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031109-114400-4808r.htm).

The DNC needs to remember: steering committees suck because committees can't steer around an iceberg to save the children.

And it's time to pare the field. Reverend Sharpton, Senator Lieberman, General Clark, Rep. Gep, Rep. Kucinich? Thank you for your service, you are hereby dismissed to your other duties. Moseley-Braun still serves a purpose unrelated to her skin color, but it generally involves quietly and with dignity fretting about human suffering and playing to an idea lost to the Democratic Party. Senator Edwards? Senator Kerry? Governor Dean? Front and center. It's now time to show the country what you've got.

A four-way race with Moseley-Braun, Edwards, Kerry, and Dean will pretty much serve the Democrats the best. Edwards is probably, in the long run, the strongest candidate against Bush whether Democratic voters understand that yet or not.

In the meantime, Mr. McAuliffe and Senator Miller ought to stop the public infighting on CNBC; it's not a good thing to begin with, and both are tasteless in their manner and approach. It's a sideshow. Mr. McAuliffe seems to want the party molded by the DNC's hands. At least the voters will know whose neck to stretch if the Party in general blows '04 out their asses.

If you're going to openly show your mistrust of the American voter who identifies with the Democratic Party and its candidates, there are certain issues of subtlety which can still be considered. Part of the "muddling" of the messages of the candidates comes from the fact that none of them trust the viewing public in the debates and they're trying to play close to the vest. The way the "picture" changes and the way ratings-driven news priorities confuse political perspectives, I think they're simply trying to exploit Bush's faults with out being openly bloodthirsty. And on that note, Democrats need to take a few notes from the GOP: if you acknowledge that politics is dirty, play dirty on certain counts. Unloading on Bush and making a stand now or at any time during the last three years would be a good idea. Give the ABB crowd something to rally around. That's a seeming problem with everybody but candidates who otherwise simply can't win.

But ... the Dems do have a candidate with just enough sparkle and shine to beat Bush in a fair election, if the GOP will allow it. Let's try not to accidentally cancel the registrations of thousands of Democrats in what turns out to be a disputed state in the election this time, eh?

Aside from that, it's a question of whether or not the DNC knows what it actually has its hands on. Judging by Mr. McAuliffe's representation of the committee ... no, they don't.

If it didn't sound so bloody extortionist, I'd start a betting pool on how soon after Bush's election Al Qaeda will choose to bring the war to us here in the homeland. Did I say extortionist? I meant ghoulish. Um ... yeah. Propose that one around the office, or something.

obviously i don't want israel to be invaded... it would be better to be friends than fight. but if israel was an imminent threat and was preemptively attacked (not a cowardly surprise attack like before) i wouldn't like it but i'd say it's logical.


What relevance does that reply have to with legality?


:confused:

If you can't get the relevance of those examples to your assertions about law, your a lost cause.

whether israel broke any S.C. resolutions is a separate discussion.

She has broken not only resolutions but international law on a grand scale.

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0393/9303040.htm

. (do me a favour and stick to the subject)


I am, legality.

but as far as turkey and morocco, it depends on the severity of the offense and on the circumstances. every case is treated differently.


Why are they treated differently then Israel? A offence is a offence, don't put any ethical bull crap in it please then you make your point irrelevant.

repeat offenders get treated more harshly in any legal system

Lessons to be Learned From 66 U.N. Resolutions Israel Ignores

I bet they do. :rolleyes:

And this is pretty hypothetical:

If you could stop 2 billion from dying in world war three by murdering your seemingly innocent neighbor, which is surely against the law - would you do it?

You are quite gratified by what you see as a justified case to call GW a criminal. That's cool. I honestly don't care if he is, as long as he's doing his best to meet his obligaitons as president.

I realize it's a slippery slope, but you seem to act as if it's a cliff.

Honestly I think 3/4 or so people who cannot stand bush and who enjoy thinking of him as a criminal, are still pissed off about the clinton debacle with the cigars and the bizness. That was bullshit I agree. But that doesn't justfiy MORE bullshit.

I'll be voting to keep the socialists out of office.

What relevance does that reply have to with legality?
a) it has to do with logic.
b) an attempt to put laws on countries is an extremely FUBAR concept... bluntly speaking...
having said that,
i'll add (again) that laws are man-made.
laws get added
laws get removed
laws get changed.
laws are not perfect.
laws are open for interpretation because of bad wording.
laws are not always agreed upon by all members of the very diverse UN GC and SC

it used to be illegal to smoke pot in amsterdam.
now it's legal.

it used to be legal to do cocaine (it was perscribed by doctors actually)
it's illegal now

Your reply did not logically jive with the question posed. It was essentially whether or not it would be ok for Israel to be invaded illegally, you gave me nonsense. It was really just a yes or no question.

i'll add (again) that laws are man-made.

So? Do you follow the law?

laws get added
laws get removed
laws get changed.
laws are not perfect.


So I would assume that mallicious murder is not a perfect illegal act? As would be invading a nation for no reason? Some laws are never going to go away, those are just two of them.

laws are open for interpretation because of bad wording.


Semantics are not relevant; the laws are clear and concise on the issue of per-emptive invasions.

laws are not always agreed upon by all members of the very diverse UN GC and SC


So because not everyone agrees to a law it makes the law irrelevant? That is a grevious logical fallacy, and it really strikes me that a murderer could use that argument and be laughed out of court.

So I would assume that mallicious murder is not a perfect illegal act? As would be invading a nation for no reason?

a) there's a difference between the 2.
b) (it's offtopic but) "malicious" is a subjective term
c) if there's an invasion, there must be a reason.

Semantics are not relevant; the laws are clear and concise on the issue of per-emptive invasions.

a) semantics are extremely relevant in the legal world.
b) "clear and concise" that's an opinion, not a fact.

So because not everyone agrees to a law it makes the law irrelevant?
you're right, it doesn't... that's where the FUBAR part comes in

Not when the law is clear and to the point. A nation cannot pre-emptively invade another without clear and concise PROOF of this threat. And authorization by the UN SC is also needed to make it legally sanctioned.

b) "clear and concise" that's an opinion, not a fact.


So then legally DNA would be worthless?

you're right, it doesn't... that's where the FUBAR part comes in

So if you didn't believe in the laws against murder you wouldn't abide by them? Thus you advocate anarchy... understood.

Not when the law is clear and to the point
that's where semantics come in. they wording has to be "clear and to the point"

without clear and concise PROOF of this threat
unfortunately, the "proof" game is also very subjective. what one country perceives as proof, another might dismiss. then there's the political inside "games" that affect what's recognized as enough proof

So then legally DNA would be worthless?
i still argue that "clear" and "concise" is subjective
while DNA evidence are facts. it's either there or not.

although in many court cases DNA evidence has been inadmissible because of certain factors..i.e. the lab testingthem was exposed as not following procedures when conducting tests... testing staff was insufficiently trained, etc.

if you didn't believe in the laws against murder you wouldn't abide by them?
a) the term "murder" is subjective as well. let's use "killing".. it's more objective.
b) some ppl say abortions are murder.. while they were illegal people still did them. (whaddaya know, abortions are legal now...but anyways)... and how about euthanasia? (sp)

Thus you advocate anarchy
:rolleyes:
i'm sorry, but i'm not a liberal :D

that's where semantics come in. they wording has to be "clear and to the point"





All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.


If a state is a signatory of the UN, she has to abide by the UN's laws. The US is a signatory of the UN and thus subject to her laws. If the US doesn’t want to follow international law in which she has broken (even R.Perle has said) then she could leave. The US has committed a illegal act. Period.

unfortunately, the "proof" game is also very subjective. what one country perceives as proof, another might dismiss. then there's the political inside "games" that affect what's recognized as enough proof

Proof is needed to be verified, the UN was able to have enough time verify the non-existent WMD in Iraq. The Proof has to be shown to the UN SC they discerned that it was not even close to being damning enough to warrant a invasion, and they were right. The US essentially lied to war... The war is illegal because the UN SC did not sanction it, the US again abides by those laws.

a) the term "murder" is subjective as well. let's use "killing".. it's more objective.

It's all semantically based they basically mean dead person.

b) some ppl say abortions are murder.. while they were illegal people still did them

Sadly a human is considered alive once it breathes, if that weren't true then a dead person would be alive.


i'm sorry, but i'm not a liberal

Liberals do not support anarchy; you did by essentially saying laws are worthless and subjective.

It all seems quite logical when you think about it. First they had to arrive at reason that they could use to convince that cumbersome Congressional bureaucracy we had to go to war - the WMDs - then, at the same time, they had to demonstrate that Iraq represented a clear and present danger so that we could use the old "self-defense" excuse to avoid going against international laws. Now that all that has proven to be complete bullshit, and that they've moved on through "a really bad guy" to "a mission from God to cram democracy down the throats of people around the world", it's quite understandable that they would acknowledge that the original rationale had no real basis. They're just being honest.
But Mr Perle, ... said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptableI wish The Guardian had given us the exact words re: "morally unacceptable." But assuming it's an accurate paraphrase, this quote is a perfect synopsis of all that I find repugnant about this conquest and occupation of Iraq. It had nothing to do with self-defense or "bringing democracy" to the Mideast.

It was a vanity war - a Christian crusade providing just one more example of their twisted little world in which "morality" always trumps law.

:m: Peace.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

how nice.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter

so essentially, they're sayin g "you're not allowed to fight. when there's a problem come to us and we'll fix it" .....but .."we won't interfere in your business"

they outlawed war and they refuse to interfere to prevent war. how practical is that?

All Members shall ... refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
france and germany should be invaded too, then :D

it just shows how weak the UN charter is.... and the alternative it provides to "going at it alone" is pretty pathetic (although the idea is nice, isn't it?)

legality..pfft.

we could use the old "self-defense" excuse
imho "that old self-defense excuse" should not be trivialized like that

Now that all that has proven to be complete bullshit
that's remained to be seen. even if they never find anything, that doesn't mean he didn't have them, even right up to the war. that just means they're good at hiding things in their own backyard or smuggling out thru the unattended huge borders to other countries.
a) im still confident they'll find something eventually
b) even if they wouldn't, this war is justified

a mission from God to cram democracy down the throats of people around the world
"a mission from God" ??? HAH! you wish! that'd make it much easier for you to argue. wouldnt it.
and you're talking as if democracy is a bad thing. are you opposed to democracy?

they would acknowledge that the original rationale had no real basis
they never said it had "no real basis". they said that was the marketing strategy (if you will) they decided upon. much more important issues (nothing about stealing "our oil from under their sand", as i hope by now you see) were also big factors.

It had nothing to do with self-defense or "bringing democracy" to the Mideast

a) self-defense from military threat is one form
b) democritizing that part of the world is another form of self-defense (long term) ...and therefore it has to be genuine, and not simply a marketing strategy.

If you wanna believe that Iraq was a threat to US ( LMAO ) go ahead if it makes you sleep better. What ever happened to Al Qaida ? Its funny that US "cant" smash down one terrorist organisation even they (CIA) have had their fingers in every pot.
What Iraq had to with terrorism ?
Its funny how its allright to US to put militants in power here and there during last 50 years in the name of "war-on-communism" and now its okey that they are cleaning their mess up with "war-on-terrorism".

What would happened if;
a) More of Middle-East countries had chance their oil-currency to Euro ?
b) And OPEC still running like old days ?

What would happened to struggling economy of US ?

I fear that because US is locomotive of western economy,
the US governments (Bush&co) first priority is to keep stock-market alive, by any means...?
It would be awfull if after great victory against communism the core of US, the economy, would fail...?

Well, they got the bombs and as we know, history is written by victorious...

What was excatly that Bush was doing BEFORE the 9/11 ?

And why I dont like this Iraq-war a one bit...lets go few years back...
First; the smoking Clinton out from oval office, he was such a criminal, having a sex and all...
Second; the "democratic" elections which put Bush in power.
I can tell you that we were laughing our asses off here when watching the "number 1" democratic nation in the world measuring ballot holes and all that shit...
Third; the 9/11 case...nothing wrong there, eh ?
Fourth; Look where we are now...

Legal, not legal, legal, not legal...yeah, now were are arguing was the war legal, give me a break...The thing is that it doesnt matter, US with her nukes can do anything they are pleased to do, and in the name of God, moral and justice...

so essentially, they're sayin g "you're not allowed to fight. when there's a problem come to us and we'll fix it" .....but .."we won't interfere in your business"


Yes, and any state that signs to the UN charter is bound by this. You may find it folly, but again you don't matter. The UN purpose to AVOID wars, and un-nessecary ones like this one.


they outlawed war and they refuse to interfere to prevent war. how practical is that?


War is not outlawed, illegal wars are, and illegal wars are those that are not sanctioned by the UN.SC.

france and germany should be invaded too, then

There is no clause in there that says support means war, a war would have to sanctioned again by the UN SC, I don't think your getting it.

it just shows how weak the UN charter is.... and the alternative it provides to "going at it alone" is pretty pathetic (although the idea is nice, isn't it?)


The UN is not weak, because it was then the US wouldn't have bothered to go.

legality..pfft.


Why don't we just live in the jungle.

:rolleyes:

i like the jungle. all those trees :D

the problem with UN, it's not an independent body. it's all nice and dandy when small countries misbehave. but when a superpower has a problem, (in this case, the biggest strongest superpower) then ...well.. we've got a problem!

any state that signs to the UN charter is bound by this
ok we're going in circles here.
you're blaming US for supposedly violating the UN charter, but you ignore Iraq's violations...and french/german/russian violations (re: iraq particularly)

War is not outlawed, illegal wars are
and who says it was "illegal"?
looking at what you posted from the UN charter, US followed the rules. but then again, others might say it didn't.

a war would have to sanctioned again by the UN SC
1) i realize that. i was just making a funny
2) so you have 15 "judges", right? some say "yes it's legal" some say "no it's not". there's no facts here, only opinions. tyranny of the majority is what it is. you got countries like Syria deciding whether US should practice self-defense. don't you find it a little ridiculous?

The UN is not weak, because it was then the US wouldn't have bothered to go
they went to the UN just for that purpose to attemt to strengthen it. US actually went because Blair asked and got him to.
US tried to do it by the official apparently-inadequant and inefficient mega-beurocracy that is the UN, but it's so weak it can't even decide which socks to put on in the morning

None of what you wrote refutted the fact what the US did was wrong and illegal according to what she wrote up about 58 years ago. You can rationalize all you want, and explain to me the means. But the end is the same, it was a illegal action by the sole hegemonic power. This action is going to bite that power in the arse so badly, it's poetic. The fact the US went to the UN SC to ask for a verification of war shows the US knew it would have been illegal to go without one. Otherwise what a fruitless adventure.

what the US did was wrong and illegal
the "wrong" part is very subjective. i think it was "right"...and so do many many others. as far as the legality, we've discussed this already.

what she wrote up about 58 years ago
just as everything else in life, circumstances and status-quo and political realities change.
what was correct and moral 58 yrs ago (or even 10 yrs ago) may not be moral and acceptable today.

This action is going to bite that power in the arse so badly, it's poetic
this can't be ruled out. time will tell.
there are some people that WANT it to happen, just so they could say "i told you, stupid ameriKans. serves you right!"
are you one of those?

the "wrong" part is very subjective. i think it was "right"...and so do many many others. as far as the legality, we've discussed this already.


Wrong in the legal sense, not the ethical one you propose. There is only one way to follow the law oth.

what was correct and moral 58 yrs ago (or even 10 yrs ago) may not be moral and acceptable today.


Morals are never acceptable, especially in the world wide sense with no set morals. What is set is laws, and those laws should have logically been changed if they were so "out of date" oth. The US didn't feel the need to change them, thus they are bounded by them. There is no argument here.

are you one of those?

For killing 12,000 innocent Iraqi's in a imperialistic adventure? No, America is getting her just deserves in Iraq as it is.