Iraq: Well, Hindsight is Always 20/20 ...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If he's lying about anything his credibility in total is called into question and I fail to see how you can only rely on part of the report in that case.

True dat, but his claim that they haven't found any weapons has been verified by the fact they haven't found any wepaons.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You say that as if it didn't have that right already and hasn't exercised it in the past. Serbia?

If the US claims the right to wage aggressive wars then all I can say is "go terrorists" since that's what they do.

Kosovo was different, no one really disapproved of it that much.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Agathon
Kosovo was different, no one really disapproved of it that much.

The Serbs sure did.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The Serbs sure did.

Because they were actively engaged in killing people. Same goes for Rwanda which also justified intervention.

Saddam Hussein's atrocities were ancient history and most were committed either while he was an ally of the US or when the Coalition failed to protect the rebellion George Bush had incited in 1991.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Agathon
Because they were actively engaged in killing people.

what another dumbass ignorant statement... go educate yourself about Kosovo... how come the UN human rights people concluded the only "mass grave" held 7 bodies??? OH BUT WAIT THERE WAS GENOCIDE OKMFGOMFGOMFGOMFGOMFGOM

if the bull**** figures the Western media was saying the Serbs had killed was true, there wouldn't be anyone living in Kosovo anymore...

the fact is, the Serbs were doing the same thing Israel does... the Serbs were fighting AL QAEDA SUPPORTED KLA (albanian ****heads)... the KLA was targetting civilians and the Serbs responded... but NATO bombs Serbia to spite Russia, and then we give unconditional support to Israel. ****ing bull****... all of it...

**** Clinton

and **** any moron who says "blahblah blah genocide blah blah..." you don't know what the **** you are talking about...

[Spiffor]

At least I am consistent. I opposed the Kosovo wars just as I opposed the Iraq war. If you supported the first one for humanitarian reasons, I don't understand why you'd oppose the second one.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon


If the US claims the right to wage aggressive wars then all I can say is "go terrorists" since that's what they do.

Kosovo was different, no one really disapproved of it that much.

Agathon, just for our benefit, please define "aggressive wars."

I believe the term is used in the Geneva Convention, is it not? It is also used to describe the crimes the NAZI leadership was found guilty of committing, IIRC.

[Spiffor]

Well, the nazi declared unprovoked wars to their neighbours, just ike he US did on Iraq, so I don't exactly see why you are drawing a parallel here, Ned.

An agressive war is basically any war that you join without you of an ally being attacked fist. Every war has hence at least an agressor.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
Kosovo was different,

Not in anyway that matters much. But feel free to enlighten me how selectively you apply your principles.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you supported the first one for humanitarian reasons, I don't understand why you'd oppose the second one.

Indeed .

[OzzyKP]

See thats the whole problem of a "pre-emptive war", whatever the purpose. They should be illegal, whatever the cause, whatever the justification.

This war was conceived and justified on the argument that we could look ahead to see a potential danger, a potential attack and that we were taking action to prempt that. This episode has proven that it is impossible to look ahead with certainty. The very first voyage of this new American theory on war has been shown to be a utter failure and disaster.

In our pride we thought American power and justness was infallible. We (or more accurately those who supported this war) were wrong.

Like the Titanic that sought to conquer nature was tragically humbled. So too the neo-cons attempt to conquer 230 years of American precident of morality and restraint at war has been tragically defeated. Let us just pray they feel humbled.

[Barinthus]

I only hope whoever wins the upcoming elections will drop that pre-emptive strike doctrine - it's very dangerous and only hurts the American reputation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So too the neo-cons attempt to conquer 230 years of American precident of morality and restraint at war has been tragically defeated.

Restraint at war?! Tell that to the Native Americans.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Like the Titanic that sought to conquer nature was tragically humbled. So too the neo-cons attempt to conquer 230 years of American precident of morality and restraint at war has been tragically defeated. Let us just pray they feel humbled.

I wouldn't call the manifest destiny "morality and restraint" personally. The US did have some noble moments when it came to military engagement, but it also has a long history of arrogance and self-righteousness Bush merely continued.

[OzzyKP]

Well that was different and more a factor of racism. The US didn't consider the native americans to be equal nations, but rather savages on "our" land. So I wouldn't so much consider those wars as massacres and genocide and other less pleasant terms.

But yea, there are some significant blemishes on our history.