Start of Civil War? Attacks Across Iraq!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Intending and then doing so. Don't play smart with me little boy.

Let me see... the conversation went like this:

Ted Striker: Iraq is a special case. Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter what when he came into office.

Agathon: And for that he should be tried as a war criminal.

Thus, you wanted him tried because he was going in no matter what, not because he was going in.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
I think one of the charges brought against the defendants of of the Nuremberg trials was 'conspiracy to wage aggresive war.'

Not that I think that Bush will ever face a trial.

Your point?

Should Clinton be tried for war crimes, because of Kosovo?

Should Bush I be tried for war crimes, because of the first Gulf War?

Should Bush II be tried for war crimes because of Afghanistan?

[Tripledoc]

I was merely pointing out that technically "conspiracy" to wage war is a crime. Not "intention" to wage war.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kucinich


Let me see... the conversation went like this:

Ted Striker: Iraq is a special case. Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter what when he came into office.

Agathon: And for that he should be tried as a war criminal.

Thus, you wanted him tried because he was going in no matter what, not because he was going in.

Rubbish. You assume that I didn't mean the obvious - that he went to war. But that is so obvious that I didn't think I needed to point it out.

[Kuciwalker]

Whatever. My other question still stands - how the hell is invading Iraq a crime?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Whatever. My other question still stands - how the hell is invading Iraq a crime?

John Pilger explains it all here.

[Kuciwalker]

The first two paragraphs completely destroy the article. Specifically:

And yet these proven lies are still dominant in Australia. Day after day, their perpetrators seek to obfuscate and justify an unprovoked, illegal attack that killed up to 55,000 people, including at least 10,000 civilians; that every month causes the death and injury of 1000 children from exploding cluster bombs; that has so saturated Iraqi towns and cities with uranium that American and British soldiers are warned not to go where Iraqi children play, for fear of contamination.

Complete bull****.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Whatever. My other question still stands - how the hell is invading Iraq a crime?

Aggressive wars violate the UN charter, which the US is party to.

[DinoDoc]

Considering the number of violations of that prohibition without major consequences, I question if that still holds true.

[Agathon]

Really, did the words on the charter somehow change? Saddam Hussein was dealt with according to that charter.

And if you look at international borders since 1945 you will see that they have hardly changed. Indeed the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the Indonesian occupation of East Timor leap to the mind, but the international community has never regarded those as legitimate.

I forgot Tibet.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
Really, did the words on the charter somehow change?

International law only holds as long as people are willing to enforce it. If that doesn't happen, I don't see how you can argue that states should feel bound by it.

[Tripledoc]

We now know that the British military command virtually refused to send troops to Iraq until Blair gave them a guarantee they would not be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. Blair's guarantee was worthless. And that frightens the British establishment, and the Australian establishment, too.

The Truth according to John Pilger

Now why would the proud British military establishment beg for the protection from their political masters in this case? If this is true then the morale among the US' most strong allies, Britain and Australia is low, even among the officers.

But the responsibility for the conspiracy to wage war rests entirely with the politicians.

[Agathon]

The usual excuse of people like you: might is right.

The truth is that there is no alternative. The world looked into the abyss after the end of WW2 and realised that the only alternative was international institutions. Sure, they aren't perfect but it is better than a Hobbesian state of nature between states.

Americans don't realize this because, unlike the other powers, they never suffered the devastation of war on home soil, against civilians.

In fact, despite appearances, things are getting better for the UN. There are more democracies now than there ever were before which has marginalised totalitarian states to a greater degree than ever before. If a state, no matter how powerful, attempts to go it alone it will be brought to heel by the rest of the world since no state can defy the rest of the world at an acceptable cost to itself - especially the US which simply does not have the collective will to suffer the high taxes and casualties that doing so would cost it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Aggressive wars violate the UN charter, which the US is party to.

So of course Clinton should be tried for war crimes as well - look at Kosovo.

[Agathon]

Yes, but the UN was smart about Kosovo. They basically agreed to look the other way because the Russians didn't want to be seen attacking a Serbian leader (not that they didn't want him removed). In fact it was a triumph for Clintonian diplomacy and for the UN.