War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal
International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: “I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.”
President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq – also the British government’s publicly stated view – or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.
But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that “international law … would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone”, and this would have been morally unacceptable.
This pretty well sums up our foreign policy:
“They’re just not interested in international law, are they?” said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war’s legality last year. “It’s only when the law suits them that they want to use it.”
And now for the ‘well, duh!’ statement of the week:
Mr Perle’s view is not the official one put forward by the White House.
Check our Perle’s bio.
>>Liberals (like you), think it is wrong for
>>the US to protect its interest.
Like WHO, Big Head?? I haven’t heard of any liberals who think it’s wrong for the US to defend itself against military attack, as specified in the Constitution.
Or did you already shred that “goddamned piece of paper”, and now we go to war anytime a dipshit like Dumbya thinks it would be more fun to go to war than see a psychologist about his Daddy Issues?
If you freely admit that saddam is a war criminal, then how is Bush a criminal for tracking him down and removing him from power. Isnt that just cause.
Another thing….why is nation building only now a problem for the left….Clinton tried it in Africa?
Furthermore…do you not think that Clinton had a role in 911 and everything that has happened since he was in power? Clinton had 3 opportunities to kill Bin Laden while he was in office…he chose not to in all three (discovery channel special about tracking Bin Laden). So if it werent for Clinton Osama wouldnt have been alive on 911 and Bush wouldnt have had as much of an opportunity to go to war.
Furthermore…clinton decided not to take him out after 4 seperate warnings…..he bombed 2 different Embassy’s in Africa (killing hundreds), bombed the USS Cole, and hit the world trade center the first time…..none of these signaled to Clinton that Osama was worth getting rid of? Im sure the 3,000 people who died appreciate clinton’s compassion on that one.
I know this is off-topic slightly, but im sorry…I am moderate…I dislike many of Bush’s policies, but I genuinely believe that the world is a better place with out Saddam. I agree it was the best use of our resource as far as fighting the war on terror, but I dont think Bush is a criminal for it. Just wrong. But unlike you….because I dont belong to a party…I am able to see where every president for the past 30 years has done their part to put us in the jam we are in now. Politicians from both parties are guilty of ignoring the tide of islamic extremism. Bush doesn’t deserve all of the blame for that. If you cant see that, then I guess thats just sad for this country…that politics has become a team game…..a game in which who wins is more important than what is best for our country. I actually didnt and still dont support our intial invasion of Iraq…but that doesnt mean he is a criminal….its just means he chose differently than I would have.
The fact is that if Saddam is a war criminal then Bush was justified in finding him and bringing him to justice. Why does that make Bush a criminal????? Because we didnt find WMD’s??? who cares…you already said it yourself…Saddam was a international criminal. He was already guilty of enough to be taken out…should america be punished for actually having the stones to take him out of power?? Should bush be punished for that? no!
Let me correct a typo on my last post. I meant to type: “I dont agree it was the best use of our resources”…not “I do agree..”
>>then how is Bush a criminal for tracking
>>him down and removing him from power
It’s not the “removing him from power” part that makes him a war criminal. It’s the lies used to justify the invasion, the tens of thousands of needless deaths that he inflicted after the MISSION was ACCOMPLISHED, and all the other immoral, unethical, and illegal things he’s done in conjunction with his trophy war.
>>why is nation building only now a problem
>>for the left
Nation building was never a problem for the left. It was Dumbya who derided it as a pansy move, resorted to only by femmes who weren’t WARTIME PRESIDENTS and tough guys like him. But that was before he flip-flopped. Now he wants to build nations. And what he’s doing in Iraq is not nation BUILDING, it’s destroying a nation, at the expense of thousands of hapless American soldiers.
>>Clinton had 3 opportunities to kill
>>Bin Laden while he was in office…he
>>chose not to in all three
I’m only aware of one “opportunity to kill bin Laden” that Clinton had. And in that one, he didn’t “chose not to”, he could not force Saudi Arabia to take Saddam if the Sudan arrested him, so he had no other option.
http://tinyurl.com/njagw
http://tinyurl.com/tan7
As to the first WTC attack, I was under the impression that “the attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed”. Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the attack, was caught, convicted, and jailed. I haven’t heard that Osama was involved.
In any case, I agree that Osama would be a good guy to get rid of. Too bad he’s no longer on Dumbya’s radar screen. And if Dumbya had just sent in a sniper and picked off Saddam, these throngs of patriotic Americans would not be saying he’s a war criminal, deserving punishment.
Todd,
HOW was he a criminal? In the INTERNATIONAL SENSE???
Where the USA has Killed old regimes, installed OUR OWN figure heads, THOSE we installed killed THEIR OWN people to Make LOVE to US GOV.
OR as Cuba did…They Looked for assistance from ANOTHER SOURCE, because the USA wanted CUBA as a BASE for debauchery…
>If you really don’t understnad the difference between “I voted to go to war” and “I voted to give the president the authority to use military force when all other means have failed and military force is justified,
I understand the difference. Your longer sentence is the explanation that they give now, when the war isn’t so popular. I should have written ‘I voted against the war when I voted for the war.’ They weren’t all exactly lining up to criticize the war as it was happening. John Kerry defended it in September 2003. It was only after Howard Dean leapt to the top of the polls that he and Edwards decided to vote against the 87 billion dollars to continue the war.
If only he had just stayed with his earlier convictions and said he would send more troops. He probably would be in the White House right now.
>>They weren’t all exactly lining up to
>>criticize the war as it was happening
“As it was happening”?? It’s STILL happening, Mikey. And it will CONTINUE happening for years (maybe decades), no matter who’s in the White House or the legislature. Dumbya’s ego and ignorance needlessly got us into a pickle that’s much harder to get OUT OF than it was to get in to.
I think it’s pretty funny that most compelling argument the few remaining right-wing neocon war supporters can make is “yeah, but you voted for it too”.
Har!
Did it occur to you that some people voted “for” it because they actually believed the lies that Dumbya was cranking out, sometimes stooping to the use of advisors people actually trusted, like Colin Powel?? Did it occur to you that some people voted “for” it because never in their wildest nightmares did they imagine Dumbya would rush to attack without sufficient evidence, would horribly botch the conduct of the war, and would end up painting the US into a corner we can’t get out of by sending his proxies charging into the battlefield with no plan for what to do if the Iraqi’s didn’t welcome us as liberators, throwing flowers at our feet?
After 7 years of a peabrain “running” the country, it’s easy to see that giving Dumbya the power to do ANYTHING, much less go to war, was a horrible mistake. The people with balls admit that it was a horrible mistake, and are looking to minimize future damage to the extent that is possible.
The others are the teensy-weensy group of people who, inexplicably, still support Dumbya and his war.
Todd,
The President warned the UN Weapons Inspectors to get out of Iraq in early March. The inspectors had not found anything and were being given a free hand. But, I guess that kind of flies in the face of the conservative lies.
ECA,
What the hell does Bush have to do with Cuba? So your argument is that Bush is a criminal because he is the President of the US? Because politicians 40 years before him didnt support Cuba? Are you drunk…..at least the others have somewhat coherent arguments.
This is the kind of liberal hate mongering I am so sick of. You hate america because all you do is focus on our shortcomings. Im sure you constantly complain about every little thing you think our government has done to you or someone esle. When in reality – when compared to almost every other nation in the world – our country is no worse than any other and much better than many. You probably cry that america is evil because of slavery and oppression….we have grown from that and the current americans are not responsible one bit for what happened in the 1800’s. If you want to talk about Europe by comparison then how about apartheid in South Africa or their involvement in the slave trade? Or the middle east – where dictators stone women for adultry, arrest women for being in public with someone who isnt related, women are allowed to be beaten by their husbands, and oh yeah, clandestine support of terrorism is their own special way of maneuvering in international politics. Which one of these regions is better than ours.
You need to step back and look at reality. America citizens are given better opportunities than almost any other group of people. We donate more money as a people than all other countries combined. Yes america has its faults, yes their are still small vestiges of racism, and yes our government has made mistakes. But you need to realized that the beauty of our country is that it is always evolving….each new generation tries to undo some of the evils of the preceding one. Our grandfathers ended slavery, our fathers ended segregration, and now we fight for unity and solidarity. Our great grandfathers believed in Manifest destiny…now we dont. You cant blame bush for the isssues with Cuba or south america – blame Kennedy or Nixon. and while im on that…castro is guilty of torture and murder; why no contempt for him? Oh yeah, thats right – he’s not american.
Mr. Fusion,
This is the exact language of the resolution:
The Resolution required President Bush’s diplomatic efforts at the U.N. Security Council to “obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.” It authorized the United States to use military force to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”
So I am sorry Mr. FUSION, but as you can see…the world community as a whole was under the perception that Saddam was not cooperating with weapons inspectors. They did not have a “free hand.” Please go back and look at the facts.
1) “Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.” was specifically stated as one of the reasons for the invasion.
*Some more of the reasons where:
2) Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”
3)Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”. (he many not have still had them, but we know he was capable and willing to use them because he did on his own people.
Even the UN said that they were confident that once the sanctions against Iraq were over, Saddam would just resume his weapons campaign. The post-invasion Duelfer Report stated that Hussein had still not given up on trying to produce WMD in 2003. His strategy was to first bring UN sanctions to an end by demonstrating that he was cooperating with weapons inspectors and, once sanctions were lifted, to then revive Iraq’s WMD program, including nuclear weapons.[7] The report also stated that Hussein did not want to appear weak. To deter his enemies, he intentionally deceived the world into thinking he still had WMD. So while we didnt find them…bush was not the only one who thought he had them or that they would be willing to make and use them is they didnt currently have them then.
4)Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. (This is my favorite because this policy was crafted under Clinton, not Bush). (So the plan to get rid of Saddam was first a Clinton ideal).
5) Just for good measure, dont forget this one. Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. He was firing at US planes who were legally allowed to be there under the terms of the original cease fire.
the Senate passed the authorization on October 11 by a vote of 77-23.
Again, Im sorry Mr. Fusion – the Republicans have been caught in many things (again I am a moderate so I understand that)….but in this case the facts fly in the face of the liberal lies.
>could not force Saudi Arabia to take Saddam if the Sudan arrested him, so he had no other option.
Here’s an option, have the US take him! But of course liberals would and did consider that horrible since he would have to be held without charges.
>>Here’s an option, have the US take
>>him! But of course liberals would and
>>did consider that horrible since he
>>would have to be held without
>>charges.
He could have been held WITH charges.
In any case, at least Clinton was looking for him.
He’s totally off of Dumbya’s radar screen, the dimwit is so caught up in the charnel house he created in Iraq, and trying to spin the Iranian situation such that Dick Cheney will still be able to go to war there.
Imagine. After 9/11, Dumbya’s not even “giving much thought” to capturing and punishing the guy responsible for 9/11.
Like he doesn’t have the “Worst President Ever” trophy locked up tight, huh?
About the Osama thing…there were 3 opportunities to get him (according to the discovery ch special)…Another incident (from the one speak of) involved a predator drone, but Clinton decided against it because Osama was having a clandestine meeting with a United Arab Emirates Prince. Who by the way, was guilty by association at that point. But I can understand this politically. So the team tried to get permission to move in and take him and they were denied. The team felt they could pull off the kinap, but Clinton was worried that if we killed Osama in the attempt that it would make him a martyr and help his cause….however, in hindsight (the way liberals like to view things), Osama being alive on 911 contributed much more to his cause than his death would have in the mid-to-late 90’s.
Then, while we are at it….what about the Somalia screw up. Clinton’s little nation building project. (agains for full disclosure…I do not agree with nation building as a policy. but if you remove a dictator from power, then it is your responsibility to help those people get back on their feet). We ran from Somalia because of the horrible events that were immortalized in “Black Hawk Down”. This act (which pissed off almost every military man involved in the incident (my father being one); gave Osama one more example of america’s lack of resolve in conflict. It confirmed to Osama (along with vietnam and the first gulf war) that the US would not commit long enough to a battle to win. That if he created enough carnage and put it on CCN, that the american public would demand a withdrawal. Thats why he tried to incite the US in to attacking the middle east on 911…because he knew all he had to do was wait it out and after a while…we would give up.
Furthermore…Clinton really screwed the pooch with his military downsizing project in the 90’s. He (and the rest of dem’s) thought that because the cold war was over, we could stop spending money on our national defense and put more into welfare programs and social policy.
He cut the military almost in half. However, he cut our actual fighting force even more than that. Because in peace time we needed managers and workers in the military; not actual soldiers. (again for full disclosure – I believe that our government has 4 core responsibilities (and just in case it matters, so did our founding fathers). Our federal government is granted the power to raise a military in defense of our country (which includes its interests abroad), raise and levy taxes to pay for itself, regulate interstate commerce, and perform diplomatic functions that are critical to the country as a whole (i.e. foreign diplomacy). So to me, Our governments number one responsibility is to protect us and keep a sufficient force on que to secure both the US and our interests world-wide. So this is where the money should be going. Social programs are great (especially when tied to education and job training), but they arent even mentioned in our country’s founding documents. So, for bill clinton to cut our military the way he did, so that he could prusue essentially buying off lower-income voters is a little bit of a problem.
We invaded Iraq the first time with 300,000 men (all at one time). For the second trip against Iraq in 2002, due to a decade of military cuts, we could only send in 100,000. Yet the second mission was much tougher. The first time we just ran saddam back to Baghdad. The second time we had to hold baghdad and help rebuild a nation. Granted, things did not go as planned, but had we had 300,000 men in Iraq…Things would have gone much more smoothly. So please, at least while condemning Bush…dont ignore the things that the Donkeys have done either.
I just have to agree with Lewis Black on this one….”How anyone at this point could still be a democrat or a republican is beyond me”
Furthermore, the fact that Clinton couldnt keep little willy in his pants made it to where he couldnt respond militarily against Osama, because critics at home were saying that he was just using it as a diversion to the sex scandal. (By the way, I dont believe he should have been impeached for the whole Monica thing, but none the less, it made it very difficult politically to become engaged militarily somehwere else). Not to mention the many hours he spent defending himself in court and otherwise. Also, as long as we are calling people liars…he definately broke the law by lying about his relationship under oath. He got off because he was smooth enough to debate the meaning of the words “is” and “sexual relations”. But he lied none the less and I have never heard a democrat freely admit that. Add in to that all of the money scandals he was accussed of and the whole renting out the lincoln bedroom thing and this guy wasnt exactly clean. He was an OK president, but not as good as many liberals like to claim. He ignored terrorism for the most part, crippled our military, and spent too much time either screwing interns or defending himself for doing so. He did absolutely nothing to help the middle east situation and with the exception of having a above average economy (which was most likely a result of action before he came to office – as it almost alway is) he didnt really do much. In fact, Bush has spent more money on social programs than clinton ever thought of. Look at the actual numbers, its not even close.
>>About the Osama thing…there were
>>3 opportunities to get him
Don’t forget, when Clinton was president, Osama was “just some asshole”, and assholes are a dime a dozen. And Clinton was paying attention to him, even if he didn’t manage to catch him.
AFTER 9/11 though, when we all knew what Osama was capable of (and what he had done), THAT is when Dumbya decided to focus on one of the many other assholes out there (Saddam) for no good reason, and ignored Osama. And instead of just going after Saddam the asshole and leaving it at that, he created the biggest mess for America that has been seen since the the Vietnam war.
Yep. “Worst President Ever”. It’s unanimous.
Mister Mustard,
That might be the worst point you have made this whole time. Osama was much more than just an “asshole.” since the early 90’s, bin laden had been labeled by US intelligence and the military as america’s #1 threat. I actually have a book from 1997 that specifically states just that. So if they all knew that Osama was the worst ass-hole of them all, then why did Clinton ignore them. Oh yeah, and beating the soviet military (when they were still a world power) would not be possible if he were just some “asshole.” My father was one of those who tried to get Clinton to listen in the late 90’s and take care of Osama, but he didnt want any of it. He was too busy downsizing and a new war would effect his plan. He kept saying its not a matter of if, but when. In fact, I have a tape of him saying on a TV news program back in 1999. So dont give me this BS of he was just some asshole. He had already killed some thousand americans before 911. Remember the embassies in AFRICA and USS COLE?
Plus, you must agree that the military downsizing and the pitiful cut and run attitude in Somalia played a role in all of this or you would have refuted those arguments as well. But I guess I am just talking to a wall…because excuses are fine when its Clinton, but when its Bush…he should be thrown in Jail. Hey why not have your cake and eat it to.
OK, lot of talk about war crimes.
Let’s start with the Nürnberg trial (the Nürnberg Principles are based on UN General Assembly Resolution 177) – what the German leaders were convicted of was (among other things) “Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace”.
Now I’m not sure if the same international law applies today but here’s a favorite: UN Security Council Resolution 660 which condemns Iraq for the invasion of Kuwait (“breach of international peace and security”).
The second is not a part of international law as far as I know, but here’s a pretty comprehensive list of breaches of the Geneva Conventions that count as war crimes:
1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
2. Torture or inhumane treatment
3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
7. Taking hostages
>>1. Willful killing, or causing great
>> suffering or serious injury to body
>> or health
>>2. Torture or inhumane treatment
>>3. Unlawful wanton destruction or
appropriation of property
>>4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in
>> the forces of a hostile power
>>5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a
>> fair trial
>>6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or
>> transfer
>>7. Taking hostages
Hey, did we force POWs to serve in our armed forces too?
Oh, I forgot. They’re not POWs, they’re “enemy combatants.
#40, Todd (Chickenhawk)
Your view of history is so revisionist. You quoted selective text. The real quote might be over your head.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to—
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Don’t forget, the President had lied to Congress about the status of WMDs and the links to al Quaeda. When the US could not get more than a handful of countries to agree to increase sanctions against Iraq, he told the UN to stuff it and warned the UN weapons inspectors to leave Iraq. :
With the failure of its resolution, the U.S. and UK abandoned the Security Council procedures and decided to pursue the invasion without U.N. authorization, a decision of questionable legality under international law. .[28] This decision was widely unpopular worldwide, and opposition to the invasion coalesced on February 15 in a worldwide anti-war protest that attracted big between six and ten million people in more than 800 cities, the largest such protest in human history according to the Guinness Book of World Records.[29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Prelude_to_the_invasion
(Oh ya, you don’t use citations. Sheet, you lazy High School student chicken hawks today. Geeze)
Even the UN said that they were confident that once the sanctions against Iraq were over, Saddam would just resume his weapons campaign.
Ya, right. And your mother wears army boots. Oopps, sorry about that, it was supposed to be a joke. I really didn’t know. Since I can not find, and I don’t plan on spending much time searching, who and when was such a comment made?
The post-invasion Duelfer Report stated that Hussein had still not given up on trying to produce WMD in 2003.
Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq’s weapons programs, said Hussein’s ability to produce nuclear weapons had “progressively decayed” since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of “concerted efforts to restart the program.”
Washington Post, Oct. 7, 2004
Duelfer’s report, delivered yesterday to two congressional committees, represents the government’s most definitive accounting of Hussein’s weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer’s assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty.
“We were almost all wrong” on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday.
ibid
So while we didnt [sic] find them…bush was not the only one who thought he had them or that they would be willing to make and use them is they didnt [sic] currently have them then.
Scott Ritter and several others had been saying for some time there were no weapons. It was well known before the invasion the “yellow cake” and “aluminum tubes” stories were bullshit. The CIA warned the White House that the intelligence was unreliable.
4)Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. (This is my favorite because this policy was crafted under Clinton, not Bush). (So the plan to get rid of Saddam was first a Clinton ideal).
More bullshit. The Republican Congress conceived and passed the law. That does not make it a Clinton Ideal, or even idea. The Iraq Liberation Act did not authorize the use of war to effect its aim.
5) Just for good measure, dont [sic] forget this one. Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. He was firing at US planes who were legally allowed to be there under the terms of the original cease fire.
Uuuhhh, when did Iraq fire on any American or British plane? Could you find some evidence that Saddam tried to assassinate Bush I? Oh, right !!! Just more chicken hawk bullshit. :
The study, prepared by the CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center, suggested that Kuwait might have “cooked the books” on the alleged plot in an effort to play up the “continuing Iraqi threat” to Western interests in the Persian Gulf
Seymour Hirsh, New Yorker Magazine, Nov. 01, 1993, pg 82
Again, Im [sic] sorry Mr. Fusion – the Republicans have been caught in many things (again I am a moderate so I understand that)….but in this case the facts fly in the face of the liberal lies.
Nope. You are just a chicken hawk using another handle. Your revisionist history and your penchant for quoting without attributing is well known. Claim you are a moderate all you want. I would really hate to be one of your teachers. Christ what do they teach in Grade 10 today? Didn’t your mommy ever teach you to not lie ???
Todd, I’m not to going to pick apart your other posts. Let me sum them up real quick. Bull shit.
You are too much an armpit to worry about. My pain medication is kicking in so I’m going back to bed.
Just to clarify my post #49,
Todd said:
The post-invasion Duelfer Report …
There should be a break as I quote from another source,:
Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration …
Forgive me for the confusion I may have caused.
Mr. Fusion,
First off….I am not in tenth grade….whats with insult after insult…do you think that if you yell BS louder that it will actually turn out to be true???? Your an idiot. You call me a chicken Hawk and you dont even know me….you question my intelligence and you dont even know me…Why is that everytime a moderate debates with a liberal or conservative; all they do is yell insults at him. Is it because they are too dumb to actually hold a civil debate?? Or just too sure of themselves to actually be corrected??? hey…that sounds like bush.
So while you call me a chicken hawk, just ignore the fact that I serve my country. YOu call me a party liner…yet everytime I metnion a dem that made a mistake…you stand up for them….so who is really the party liner. I told you that I felt the invasion in Iraq was a bad idea because we could have used the resources more effectively elsewhere. How is that party line? I agree that our invasion was premature (though not illegal). How is that party line? However, I dont agree that bush is the worst president all time, or even my time(carter was worse). Yet, all I have heard from you is party line (democrat) BS. So, if I support our current mission (for the sake of the Iraqi civilians who believe it or not, would have it much worse if we left) that makes me worthless. Have you ever heard of sectarian killing? Im sorry for actually caring about the fate of those people. Im sorry that makes me an arm-pit that isnt worth debating. You may disagree with me….but does that make me an armpit or a chicken hawk?? No, but those kind of comments do you make you a party line democrat. Do you honestly think you know everything??? do you honestly think that you have every angle covered. If you do, thats just sad. but I guess you already know that…since you know everything.
It seems that no one recognizes
that international law is the base of human solidarity , human existance and human survival.
If there is no means there is no help.