> One of my best friends is a US soldier who recently returned from Iraq. > He is a soldier who volunteered to protect his country and was ordered to > instead go fight an illegal war. He is not a murderer, thug or baby > killer, and I would fight anyone who called him such. > > On the other hand, I would relish the opportunity to tell George W Bush > what I think of him. He is the one that lied to this country to justify a > war that has no legal or moral reason to be fought, and has resulted in > the loss of thousands of lives. It has also allowed al Zarqowi (sp?) to > rise up from an unknown to a "hero of Islam" as he is described by the > average Iraqi, resulting in untold more deaths in the past, present and > future. I would love the chance to call him or any of his administration > murderers, thugs and baby killers. That IS what they are. > > So, you see, your premise is mistaken and those here are aware enough of > reality to see it and tell you so. Sorry. ============================================== Brian, heh, heh...you took my question the wrong way, but it may be my fault in not presenting the question well. Also, I'm intrigued with the terms 'legal war' and 'illegal war'. Oxymoron for one and double redundancy for the other? It can make for much discussion.
No. Don't confuse morality and legality. (Lawyers sure don't.)
Can I properly assume that if a person who looks at the two engagements (Iraq and Afghanistan) as 'illegal'...can also publically announce that the Baath Party and the National Taliban (Taleban) Party should be reinstated in their respective countries as leaders?
No. There's no basis for that. An illegal invasion of a sovereign state stands as an illegal action regardless of the character or status of that state's regime at the time or subsequently. It's not a question of a person who looks at it that way. There is a well-established and univerally accepted international structure for this, and in those terms - the only ones that count - it was illegal.
Or, would that be too hard to swallow? Let's call for a UN resolution to start the ball rolling.
Um... There was such a call if you remember. It didn't stop the ball rolling. Kofi Annan says it was illegal. Another scene at the UN, involving Mr Powell, whose honor Gustl just questioned (and most of the world agrees now as they did then), set the stage by covering the Guernica for the occasion, highly symbolic, then and now. As was Mr Powell's toy "evidence".
I guess the first 'order' of the day (pun not intended) is to have Sadam released from jail and give him back his presidency. That would be the decent thing to do, don't you think? ;~)
If you steal money from a thief you're still a thief and so is he. If you're found guilty that doesn't make him innocent. They're two different cases. The issue here is that the invasion was illegal, and so is the occupation, whatever happens to Saddam is irrelevant.
Ron B. PS- With this, I'll disengage and disappear into the sugar cane field, only to reappear when I have something to discuss about biofuels. 8~)
:-) I don't think you'll be that lucky. Regards Keith _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
