Anti-war protesters, answer me this!

[Dinner]

BTW here is a great read about what happened in Grenada. I'd highly recommend it to anyone who wants to get a clear historical understanding of what occured and why. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...189697-0173634

[Dinner]

International law is very clear on the subject of war. You can only go to war if someone is attacking you. All other excercizes of force are illegal and thus violations of international law.

Can you please show me where this is written? I'd be willing to bet money that states are allowed to go to war when they are attacked or when their vital interests are at stack. That doesn't even bring up about how war is considered A.O.K. when the U.N. deems it to be sanctified, but, all of that is a side show because if you aren't allowed to intervine to stop Genicide then the law is meaningless.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
BTW here is a great read about what happened in Grenada. I'd highly recommend it to anyone who wants to get a clear historical understanding of what occured and why. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...189697-0173634

At the time Reagan claimed it was because the Cubans and Soviets were building a military airbase. Actually, it was an airbase to increase tourism on the island, but it provided a convenient excuse to the Reaganistas. They also said that American medical students were being held hostage, but when interviewed one of the kids said (after back in America), the first they knew they were being held hostage is when the US military showed up and told them that they were being rescued.

It was all BS and the invasion was just the US putting it's toe back into the world of direct international intervention (the other toe was blown up in a Lebanese suicide bombing a few days earlier). It was America's first internationa adventure since we got kicked out of Vietnam. There were no revolutionaries being trained in Grenada (which, frankly, would have been a terribly stupid place to do it considering how small the island was and how easy it would have been for any tourists to have spotted them--much better to do it in Cuba where no one could see).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin

International law is very clear on the subject of war. You can only go to war if someone is attacking you. All other excercizes of force are illegal and thus violations of international law.

Can you please show me where this is written? I'd be willing to bet money that states are allowed to go to war when they are attacked or when their vital interests are at stack. That doesn't even bring up about how war is considered A.O.K. when the U.N. deems it to be sanctified, but, all of that is a side show because if you aren't allowed to intervine to stop Genicide then the law is meaningless.

There was no genocide in Kosovo. As for the legitimate use of force, simply look up the UN charter.

[chequita guevara]

Re: the Contras. First off, the only human rights violation the Sandanistas were ever accused of was some deaths involving the relocation of the Moskito indians. The Indians were being moved becase they lived in a war zone, a war zone created by the Contras. The Sandanistas were trying to move the civilians out of harm's way, but did it in a totally ham-handed way. The people responsible for the deaths were prosecuted and dealt with.

The Contras, on the other hand, murdered 40,000 Nicarguans, destroyed schools and hospitals and communal farms, smuggled cocaine into the US, tortured people, raped women, massacred isolated farmers, etc.

The US organized, trained, equipped, fed, clothes, and sheltered this army. For all intents and purposes they were an extension of the US government. They were directed in their operations by the CIA.

This was so blatent that the Nicaraguans took the US to the World Courth and won (because of the incident of the harbor mining).

From start to finish the US war on Nicaragua was a violation of international law. And for half of the war it was a violation of American law.

[Dinner]

There most certainly was large scale ethnic cleansing. I heard from a number of villagers who told me one morning he woke up to find the VJ (Yugoslav Army) had surrounded their town and told them they all had one hour to leave or they'd be killed. After the civilians had been forced out they'd dinomite the houses to prevent people from coming back or even getting their belongings which were left behind.

BTW I saw a ton of mine fields along the Albanian and Macedonian borders. The bastards would tell the Albanian they had to leave the country or they'd be killed and then they refused to let them through the normal border crossings and mined the nearby border areas.

You can't defend Slbo Che. NATO got this one right even if they waited to long to stop him in Bosnia.

[chequita guevara]

Yes, that happened, after NATO started bombing. Many of the people I saw claimed they fled because of the bombing.

I'm not defending Milosevic's actions, but claiming genocide when there are no bodies to substantiate the charge is just as wrong.

[Tripledoc]

Re: Anti-war protesters, answer me this!

Originally posted by The diplomat

How come they only bash the US and Israel?

They currently kill the largest number of people.

[Sandman]

How about this one: The US repeatedly violated the UN arms embargo on Bosnia during the civil war there, by dropping planeloads of weaponry to the Bosnian Muslims. Buoyed up by these weapons shipments, the Muslims attempted a number of offensives which were easily defeated by the better-equipped Bosnian Serbs, who then went on the counter-offensive across the country, including at the Srebrenica enclave.

[Az]

Tripledoc: lies. Sudan, Nigeria, Russia, Colombia, this is just a small example of nations that harm civilian populations much more than israel. but of course, "I'm not listening"....

Che: an answer is coming.

[uh Clem]

Oerdin: "It is logical and legal to put a stop to people who are planning to carry out armed attacks against civilians."

We're shutting down the School of the Americas?

[Edan]

Re: Re: Anti-war protesters, answer me this!

Re: Israel and the US

Originally posted by Tripledoc
They currently kill the largest number of people.

Go ahead, pull the other one.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by cia
That raises a bugger of a question. What if supporting a treaty like NATO violates international law?

NATO is supposed to be a defensive organisation. Why did it launch an offensive war? Isn't it against its own charter?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It was about getting the Yugoslav government to cease committing ethnic cleansing and when it became apparent that Slobo was going to keep on cleansing until somebody stopped him that is when NATO became involved.

Ethnic cleansing eh? Well sure the US doesn't give a two hoots about ethnic cleansing in other parts of the world, say, hm, Africa? Besides, if the evidence of ethnic cleansing is so strong, why does the court at the Hagues have so much trouble with Slobo?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'd be willing to bet money that states are allowed to go to war when they are attacked or when their vital interests are at stack.

By defining anything as a "vital interest," a country can launch an attack at its own whim.