OT; afghan war illegal?

[Jatta Raso]

Originally Posted by DroopSnoot

LMAO! been there? So all the people who gave up their lives to try to free that country and protect the rest of the western and eastern world from harm died for nothing? (not for nothing; for protecting petrodollar investments and helping plundering Iraq for oil)

And to the rest :
"We know he has them, we just have to catch him with them, thats the tough bit because we know he keeps moving them" - Hanz Blix (it has been proved extensively that those WMD never existed in the first place; Blix later stated that Washington and it's allies over dramatized the threat possibility, and assumed the whole story lacked foundation and solid evidence; US government ended up stating "just because we found nothing doesn't mean there was nothing"; draw your own conclusions really...)

Sadam was a despot murderous monster (put and maintained in charge by the US) that killed thousands of people (with backup of US), not only in his own country but in neigbouring countries because he didnt like their culture or religion (and because US gave him the means and support), the nation he controlled lived under the heel of his boot and he wasnt afaid to crush his people (nor of his neighboring countries because US had his back) and did so on many occasions. (with complacency of US/UN)

Its sad that the US didnt want to wait for the UN (not the saddest part from US on this though), but Sadam is gone and the country is now free (and in ruins and plundered of natural resources, plus enslaved on external debt) to start again as it was supposed to when Saddam was empowered in the first place to fight off Iran.(do you even know the first thing on Iraq-Iran war???)

i'm sorry, i don't want to antagonize you, but you display the utmost ignorance on a real sensitive issue like war; wake up to reality, the US intervention was a crime, lots of civilians died for nothing, they created the situation and later dealt with it on its own terms and agenda, acting only for US's leader elite interests, most ppl know about this, that's why US's image abroad is so degraded. it's well known US's main business is war, they just need some excuse every now and then to wage it. US's main industry is arms production, that must keep flowing; after all, if no one's fighting who'd be buying?

about the legal aspect of a war, it would be important to know who's casting judgement on this and on what terms; we have been lied over and over again by our leaders, as we where with the WMD and many other excuses before.

above all, i don't care if it's illegal or not as much as if it's right or not. legality is also a form of bureaucracy and is as corruptible as anything else. death penalty is legal on some places; i don't care about that, for me it's wrong plain and simple, not an issue that 'legality' can whitewash.

[chantaje]

Originally Posted by Jatta Raso

above all, i don't care if it's illegal or not as much as if it's right or not. legality is also a form of bureaucracy and is as corruptible as anything else. death penalty is legal on some places; i don't care about that, for me it's wrong plain and simple, not an issue that 'legality' can whitewash.

You are right , legality is a burocracy and can be bended.
its not the best guide of whats "good and bad" but is the only one that exist.
and its the only tool we as common people have to control our "leaders"

its the only way to have cheney or other war criminals on trial (in our dreams maybe but its posibble tecnicaly speaking).

thats why i try to put the legal part on the topic.
we all know that its wrong (i hope we do) , if we know its also illegal we can at least dream to see the responsables on trial.


S! thanks for all the responses. its a very interesting topic for me and i learn a lot reading all the opinions and povs

[smokincrater]

I think everybody is missing the point. Wether something is legal or illegal is best left to lawyers. From what I understand of the American legal system. Someone can be tried for murder in a US court for a crime that was committed off the Great Barrier Reef that was found guilty in that country`s soverign court (Australia`s state of Queensland) for manslauter.

A skewd interpretation of the right to bear arms permits any citizen in the US to have arms whatever the situation, when the original intention was a very narrow and specific use of arms.

Whether anything is legal or illegal can only be tested in court. But who`s court?

The International Military Tribunal featured leaders of a soverign state charged with crimes that prior to 1948 were not international crimes. The Tribunal should have and did punish those charged and found guilty for turly horrible crimes. But as a legal study retroactive charging has been conviently forgotten about. It was noted at the time by senior allied military figures that thanked the creater of the christian church that they were on the winning side.
The charges of Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity could leveled with some justification at the Soivet government, It was with some chargin to the Nazis`s that when the asked about planning for the Poland invasion of September 1939 the Soviet delegation would often want the questioning stopped or only asked in such a way that the answer could not involve them.

The only international body that has any claim of the right to try anyone of any country it is the International Crime Tribunal, which does excellant work.

Will Colin Powell, Tony Blair, Bush Senior and Jr be taking a vacation to The Hague I doubt it. As the ICT would like to ask them a few questions .

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by smokincrater

A skewd interpretation of the right to bear arms permits any citizen in the US to have arms whatever the situation...

Totally and completely false. The ignorance level concerning US firearm laws is staggering.



--Outlaw.

[Davy TASB]

Originally Posted by Jatta Raso

we have been lied over and over again by our leaders, as we where with the WMD and many other excuses before.

Tell that to the Kurds in Northern Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

[Jatta Raso]

Originally Posted by Davy TASB

Tell that to the Kurds in Northern Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

i don't understand the point you're trying to make; seems like you're picking on one single phrase and putting it out of any context, then confronting it with facts trying to make it come up as false; plus you're not making any sense: if that gas attack counted as an argument, there would be no need to seek evidence of what was already known by everyone. it wasn't the gas that was being referred as WMDs by 2003, but i'll get to that later.

let me tell you about the Kurds, i'm well aware of that monstrosity and when i saw that Iraq dictator hanged like a pig i thought he got what he deserved; but when it took place in 1988 not only the US didn't move a straw to take him down, they even tried to put it on others hands, knowing full well what had happened; so US governments DID lie.

US took as argument an occurrence in 1988, in which they lied trying to blame Iran (you can read it in the article you refer btw), to justify an act of war in 2003 by switching the blame to Iraq.

concerning WMDs, of course such gas attacks classify as a weapon capable of mass killing and proved real enough, but let's be honest, that wasn't what was being used as argument; of course the attack on the Kurds in 1988 and the inaction by the US rendered that single argument useless as an excuse by 2003, so what went on the table was rather the capability of deploying such weapons at great distances, plus additional programs to build strategic and nuclear weapons, the International Atomic Energy Agency got involved, Iraq was invaded, but evidence of all that was never found.

hope i made myself clear.

[Davy TASB]

Originally Posted by Jatta Raso

i don't understand the point you're trying to make; seems like you're picking on one single phrase and putting it out of any context, then confronting it with facts trying to make it come up as false; plus you're not making any sense: if that gas attack counted as an argument, there would be no need to seek evidence of what was already known by everyone. it wasn't the gas that was being referred as WMDs by 2003, but i'll get to that later.

let me tell you about the Kurds, i'm well aware of that monstrosity and when i saw that Iraq dictator hanged like a pig i thought he got what he deserved; but when it took place in 1988 not only the US didn't move a straw to take him down, they even tried to put it on others hands, knowing full well what had happened; so US governments DID lie.

US took as argument an occurrence in 1988, in which they lied trying to blame Iran (you can read it in the article you refer btw), to justify an act of war in 2003 by switching the blame to Iraq.

concerning WMDs, of course such gas attacks classify as a weapon capable of mass killing and proved real enough, but let's be honest, that wasn't what was being used as argument; of course the attack on the Kurds in 1988 and the inaction by the US rendered that single argument useless as an excuse by 2003, so what went on the table was rather the capability of deploying such weapons at great distances, plus additional programs to build strategic and nuclear weapons, the International Atomic Energy Agency got involved, Iraq was invaded, but evidence of all that was never found.

hope i made myself clear.

[Jatta Raso]

so you think this is funny? shouldn't even bothered...