Start of Civil War? Attacks Across Iraq!

[Tripledoc]

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

Kosovo was not UN sanctioned? Or was it only NATO sanctioned? I forget.

[Agathon]

You know, this is what it must have been like before Watergate really hit big. Some people were defending Nixon with all they had and refusing to see the basic fact that he was a crook.

When the reckoning comes this time what will you say?

[Tripledoc]

Actually the US is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court, so there is no legal basis for charging US soldiers. But they are not responsible anyway. According to Nuremberg standards they cannot be held responsible on conspiracy charges.

The US politicians have deliberately misled their own people, and it is the people of the US who, if they have the will, must see this thing through.

All indications points towards the fact that the US was never even interested in a stable Iraq. All plans, which had been worked on for years, were discarded by Rumsfeld. Why?

The number of troops and equipment sent to Iraq was deliberately downscaled. Thus endangering the lives of US servicemen needlessly.

New evidence indicates that Iraqi security has largely been put into the hands of foreign mercenaries. Only 2.000 Iraqi police have been trained for the job. The rest have no police education. The mercenaries have now banded together in a 30.000 man strong army.

If stability was thus so criminally neglected, then one is forced to believe that the occupation served nefarious ends.

But most exasperating is the fact, that the US and Europe will have to deal with probably many more terrorist attacks in the future. This because of this needless affront to the Arabs.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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.

But it was still illegal... Clinton should be tried as a war criminal!

[joncha]

Originally posted by Kucinich


But it was still illegal... Clinton should be tried as a war criminal!

Why not? He was already tried as an adulterer.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kucinich


But it was still illegal... Clinton should be tried as a war criminal!

A court would have a hard time making that case.

Anyway, the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot. They went after Clinton mercilessly for the "crime" of screwing a dumb, fat girl.

Bush has real skeletons in his closet.

[Tripledoc]

It was not the fact that clinton had sex that he was charged, it was because he lied about the fact that he had sex that he was charged. Although I don' get how he was forced to lie in the first place, since having sex is not a crime.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
A court would have a hard time making that case.

How? It wasn't UN-sanctioned. It's CLEARLY illegal by your definition.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
It was not the fact that clinton had sex that he was charged, it was because he lied about the fact that he had sex that he was charged. Although I don' get how he was forced to lie in the first place, since having sex is not a crime.

They started asking questions about it (in some questioning thingy where he'd swore an oath). It was an inappropriate line of questioning, but by answering he made it appropriate (he could have refused to answer and that would be that).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kucinich

How? It wasn't UN-sanctioned. It's CLEARLY illegal by your definition.

Despite what you think, the law is not that much of an ass. Clinton could have made an overwhelming case that he was acting in support of the other pillar of the UN - the Declaration of Human Rights. These are somewhat contradictory to each other, so a case could definitely be mounted.

Bush could make no such case, since his justification for the war has collapsed and he has clearly indicated that the security policy of his country is in violation of the charter.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon


A court would have a hard time making that case.

Not really.
1) It wasn't sanctioned by the UNSC.
2) The State in question wasn't threatening its neighbors.
3) The action violated the sovereign equality of nations, the very basis of international law which you claim to hold dear.
4) The UN Charter prohibits enforcement action regional agencies without the authorization of the U.N. Security Council. This is of particular importance when one considers your arguement of Clinton pointing to the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

[Agathon]

Haven't you noticed that the Charter contradicts the DOHR?

He would never be convicted. The UN clearly approved of the action although some members did not want to be seen to. It would never stand up in court.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
The usual excuse of people like you: might is right.

Given the current, past, & probable future state of anarchy that exists in the system of nation-states, self-enforcement is the only way things get done. If the states don't care to enforce a law, it ceases to have any meaning.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
Haven't you noticed that the Charter contradicts the DOHR?

Haven't you noticed that the DOHR lacks the force of law?

[Ted Striker]

In addition to the westerners and Japanese, apparently these morons have also kidnapped two foreign aid workers who are also Arabs.

What a bunch of morons.