autopilot;357826 Wrote: > Well there is a thing called the geneva convention, but you have a good > point regarding international law and it's abstractness. However, there > is a difference when you start a war on a country that has not attacked > you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions i'm no expert, but which one there supports your point? as far as i can tell, they are about rules of warfare conduct, not how you start one. in any case... am i to take it from your comment that you consider invading afghanistan illegal as well? what about the first gulf war? in both cases, neither directly attacked the USA. are you calling those illegal as well? autopilot;357826 Wrote: > Two wrongs dont make a right, that does not even come close to > justifying the death of our friends fellow countrymen. that does not address my point at all. you said it was an illegal war. i just proved it wasn't. when saddam broke the terms of the armistice, we had all the legal justification any reasonable entity needs to take further military action. thats the whole point of signing an armistice, you are compelled to comply or face consequences. you are free to say "it wasn't worth it" but you can't credibly say it was illegal. personally, i'm not saying its what i would have done, but i can see the logic behind it. the armistice compelled saddam to pro-actively demonstrate destroing his WMDs that the UN had inventoried in the years after 91 and he did not do so. it was not on us to prove he had them, it was on him to prove he didn't, by destroying them in from of the UN. in fact, the WMDs are still today unaccounted for. this is the UNs assessment, not the USAs. given that saddam simply wouldn't do that, and since it was POST 9/11, i can see why it came to a head when it did. autopilot;357826 Wrote: > Bit of both, but when i say 'Bush' i also mean the people behind him who > have the real control. Are you saying that US companies, including ones > that the Bush administration with huge stakes, did not stand to make a > lot of cash? sorry, i consider this whole bit far left loony stuff. the whole idea that bush did this for personal gain is just obnoxious and vapid. not to mention the inherent contradiction of "a little bit of both." autopilot;357826 Wrote: > Is it?! We are still at war, no? depends what you mean. i would say we are in the final stages of an occupation, (liberation) not war in any traditional sense. we are at war in afghanistan still, and with terrorism still. i am confident iraq will emerge a stable democracy, and for that i am grateful and proud. autopilot;357826 Wrote: > It would be, but as lovely as it sounds, it wont ever happen. Even if > it means that another 1,000,000 people must die before we realise. not only is this typical defeatism of the left, but its wrong. i think in america, even the majorityof obama voters think that iraq will not end a failure. i actually think that helped elect him, if iraq had been more volatile, that probably would have helped mccain. autopilot;357826 Wrote: > Thats a fundamental mistake the Bush (and British) administration made, > they totally misunderstood the culture and religious fabric of that > part of the world (and why the thought of Sarah Palin, who thinks > Africa is a country was so scary) -OR- it's an excuse to exercise more > power and influence (i suspect a bit of both). the palin thing isn't true, fyi. i don't want to get knee deep in it, but 1. it was unnamed sources, and 2. she had previous dealings with africa via charities so there is no way it could be true. in any case... i love how the "liberal" left who claims to be about non-discrimination and anti-prejudice, has no problem saying this racist argument, essentially that arabs are incapable of democracy. thats really despicable. autopilot;357826 Wrote: > But it will never happen, we dont have the power anyway even if it was > possible. We will never bomb away thousands of years of deeply routed > religion and culture, democracy is beautiful but totally incompatible > with that part of the world. Any idea that we have restored some real > and long term democracy to Iraq is a complete illusion. As evil as > Saddam was, Iraq was a secular nation and we knew that. Now we have > opened the flood gates to even more religious madness. Not only is > Democracy futile, but long term it will be worse now. not only is this a racist pov imo, but it also ignores the facts on the ground. how many elections do they have to have before you admit you're wrong? -- MrSinatra www.LION-Radio.org Using: Squeezebox2 (primary) / SBR (secondary) / SBC - w/SC 7.3b - Win XP Pro SP3 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram - D-Link DIR-655 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MrSinatra's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2336 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54678 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
