Top-Ten Reasons to Get Out of Iraq. Now!

[Gunny]

First, I should say that it was I who referred to Ruby as a pacifist, and I am not absolutely true that this is the case (that was just my impression based upon reading her posts), so if it is not, I apologize to Ruby.

Second, my guess is there are different strains of thought within the general pacifist philosophy and that some may accept certain forms of defensive, but not offensive, violence.

Finally, my intent was just to place some claims made in context. Ruby, for instance, has backed up her claims/definitions about the US activities through resort to international law and the legality of the US war in that context.

A true pacifist accepts no form of violence, offensive or defensive.

Ruby has presented a dishonest argument. Simple as that.

 

[ReillyT]

A true pacifist accepts no form of violence, offensive or defensive.

Ruby has presented a dishonest argument. Simple as that.

I guess that is a definitional question.

I still don't see where Ruby has presented a dishonest argument. Also, what argument are you talking about?

 

[Gunny]

I guess that is a definitional question.

I still don't see where Ruby has presented a dishonest argument. Also, what argument are you talking about?

You're the one who says she's backed it up. You tell me.

 

[Ruby]

Ok, had a crazy busy week but now have some time and can certainly answer some points raised about me and my intentions as well as my views.

Ok, am I am pacifist? In the sense that violence should only be used as a last resort and in self defense, yes. I dont however believe that violence can always be avoided since it can be forced upon you...as it has been forced upon Iraq by the US. They have now been forced to defend themselves as best they can.

Secondly, many of the principals laid out by the allies after WW2 in the nuremburg trials (and are the basis of many international laws) are the very principals we now are violating. We cannot say we were in danger from attack from Iraq or needed to defend ourselves against Iraq. Such an assertion would need to be supported with facts and evidence, we had none and still have none.....which is understandable because the threat didnt exist.

So the self defense condition is NOT met.

The other condition we would need to meet to make this war legal and not one of aggression is a UN sanctioning of the war...again this was not given.

It is an aggressive illegal war. Its not that complicated.

 

[Ruby]

Ok, my comparison to nazis and the US soldiers and even the state of the US currently.

Both used heavy propaganda and used lies to convince a populace they were under attack to rationalize and justify their own aggression.

The soldiers in both groups had a fair amount of coercion into becoming a soldier, in fact, the nazi soldiers were more coerced than our soldiers are which would make ours a bit more guilty. The fact that various forms of coercion are employed against american soliders are noted though and it must be understood that they dont make the decision to go to war or where and who to bomb.

Just like nazi soldiers, you will find an array of views about what they do. Its silly to pretend all the soldiers in nazi germany agreed with the nazi movement.

The soldiers in both cases are carrying out the orders of their govt and both were ordered to participate in wars of aggression and both would pay a high price to stand against those decisions. It isnt the norm in any society (going back far far into history) to see massive refusal by soldiers, no matter how heinous the orders were. They have patriotic pressures, overt pressure (threats of jail), investment in their nation no matter how wrongfully it behaves, financial pressures, cultural pressures, propaganda pressures etc. These are all forms of coercion.

In both cases, much lip service and propaganda was paid to the soldiers as "heroes" but in reality their actual treatment was that of disposable objects to be sacraficed.

Nazi germany is also a great example of how a democratic society can be convinced to give itself over to somthing less democratic. Its a good example of the harmful effects that can come from extreme patriotism. Its a good example of how effective propaganda can be.

 

[Gunny]

Ok, had a crazy busy week but now have some time and can certainly answer some points raised about me and my intentions as well as my views.

Ok, am I am pacifist? In the sense that violence should only be used as a last resort and in self defense, yes. I dont however believe that violence can always be avoided since it can be forced upon you...as it has been forced upon Iraq by the US. They have now been forced to defend themselves as best they can.

Secondly, many of the principals laid out by the allies after WW2 in the nuremburg trials (and are the basis of many international laws) are the very principals we now are violating. We cannot say we were in danger from attack from Iraq or needed to defend ourselves against Iraq. Such an assertion would need to be supported with facts and evidence, we had none and still have none.....which is understandable because the threat didnt exist.

So the self defense condition is NOT met.

The other condition we would need to meet to make this war legal and not one of aggression is a UN sanctioning of the war...again this was not given.

It is an aggressive illegal war. Its not that complicated.

Thought maybe you ran off.

Iraq forced itself on a completely defenseless nation to precipitate everything that has transpired since. You can't just arbitrarily join in the game in the second half and start villifying the US.

Second, the Iraqis are not "defending themselves." That's hogwash. They're killing each other, and pretty much anyone that isn't part of their respective "clique."

The UN is useless. I suppose we should wait on them to do something like they did in Rwanda and are doing in Darfur, right? We are a soverign nation and not beholden to bunch of corrupt, self-serving and inept politicians. Not yet. I'm sure if those like you have your way we will be though.

Will be a SAD day.

Fact is, we should NOT have invaded Iraq and/or deposed Saddam. I have said that all along. But not for any overly-sanctimonious, holier than thou BS moral reasons ... strategically, leaving him in place was the lesser of two evils.

That does not negate the justification for taking him out. There was more than enough.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ok, had a crazy busy week but now have some time and can certainly answer some points raised about me and my intentions as well as my views.

Ok, am I am pacifist? In the sense that violence should only be used as a last resort and in self defense, yes. I dont however believe that violence can always be avoided since it can be forced upon you...as it has been forced upon Iraq by the US. They have now been forced to defend themselves as best they can.

Secondly, many of the principals laid out by the allies after WW2 in the nuremburg trials (and are the basis of many international laws) are the very principals we now are violating. We cannot say we were in danger from attack from Iraq or needed to defend ourselves against Iraq. Such an assertion would need to be supported with facts and evidence, we had none and still have none.....which is understandable because the threat didnt exist.

So the self defense condition is NOT met.

The other condition we would need to meet to make this war legal and not one of aggression is a UN sanctioning of the war...again this was not given.

It is an aggressive illegal war. Its not that complicated.

Your wrong, one does NOT need the UN to sanction anything. I will now point out Kosovo was never "sanctioned" by the UN. Once again, the UN has no power except what the Member States give it and more pointedly no power to do anything without the blessing of the Security Council. It is not a Government and has no binding authority nor anyway to impose its will on anyone except by getting member states to agree to do the work.

The UN has made no official statement or proclamation nor passed any resolution stating the US OR the MANY allies involved are conducting an Illegal War. If they have be so kind as to provide the resolution number so I can look it up. In fact the UN is PARTICIPATING , they have recognized the current Iraq Government and are helping it in numerous ways. So much for a claim the UN has condemned the war or its aftermath.

Until you can cite us a Court case in Federal Court where the US has been found to be in violation of a Treaty involved in conducting the original Invasion and subsequent aid to the new Government, you can not even make the claim that the US has broken its own laws.

What IS fact is that all 3 branches of the Federal Government have consistantly ruled for almost 5 years now that the original invasion and the subsequent aid to Iraq is legal and authorized under the laws and Constitution of the United States.

 

[Ruby]

Lastly, my point that the US is a prime example of state sponsored terrorism. I dont think its ONE thing either, I think the US has a very clear pattern spanning decades of using terrorism, supporting terrorism and enhancing terrorism.

Examples I have given and that support my point are our coups in the middle east (such as Iran when we installed the Shah) and our coups in the Latin American region...I cant think of a country in the region we havent touched. We have sent in death squads, funded terrorist groups, overthrown democratically and popularly backed govts to install brutal military regimes and denied the very basic right of self determination.

We have invaded the nations as we did in Panama illegally and immorally.

These are examples of our own terrorism. These are things WE ADMIT to, there are many more incidents we dont yet admit to but have an overwhelming amount of evidence against us.

Progams such as USAID, NED, World bank and the CIA are tax funded, state supported entities that facillitate our terrorism.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/76824/mike_davis_return_to_sender_car_bombs_part_2_

The CIA's own operatives, however, proved incapable of carrying out the bombing, so Casey subcontracted the operation to Lebanese agents led by a former British SAS officer and financed by Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar. In March 1984, a large car bomb was detonated about 50 yards from Sheikh Fadlallah's house in Bir El-Abed, a crowded Shiite neighborhood in southern Beirut. The sheikh wasn't harmed, but 80 innocent neighbors and passersby were killed and 200 wounded.

Here is an incident when the US used a CAR BOMB on a residential street...isnt that terrorism?

Not only do all these things meet the definition of terrorism (our own definition) but if those acts were commited AGAINST us, we wouldnt hesitate to call it terrorism. The rules should be the same for us....the act itself should be judged against the criteria and if it meets the criteria...then by george thats what it is!

Please tell me why it would be ok for another nation to finance and plan an overthrow of the US govt and install a dictator/military regime that is sympathetic and friendly to them while being hostile to american citizens? Wouldnt that be deemed terrorism of the worst kind? Its what we have done to NUMEROUS nations, that makes us terrorists.

 

[Ruby]

Your wrong, one does NOT need the UN to sanction anything. I will now point out Kosovo was never "sanctioned" by the UN. Once again, the UN has no power except what the Member States give it and more pointedly no power to do anything without the blessing of the Security Council. It is not a Government and has no binding authority nor anyway to impose its will on anyone except by getting member states to agree to do the work.

The UN has made no official statement or proclamation nor passed any resolution stating the US OR the MANY allies involved are conducting an Illegal War. If they have be so kind as to provide the resolution number so I can look it up. In fact the UN is PARTICIPATING , they have recognized the current Iraq Government and are helping it in numerous ways. So much for a claim the UN has condemned the war or its aftermath.

Until you can cite us a Court case in Federal Court where the US has been found to be in violation of a Treaty involved in conducting the original Invasion and subsequent aid to the new Government, you can not even make the claim that the US has broken its own laws.

What IS fact is that all 3 branches of the Federal Government have consistantly ruled for almost 5 years now that the original invasion and the subsequent aid to Iraq is legal and authorized under the laws and Constitution of the United States.

No you are avoiding an important fact, I am guessing on purpose.

International law (which we were part of creating and agreed to) states we must meet one of the two criterias....we did bring it to the UN for sanctioning and they said no. Its really that simple. We can try to search for and cling to any loop hole we create, but it wont change ANYTHING at all.

We have no legal or moral basis for what we have done here.

Its also interesting to note that in the nuremberg trials it was determined that wars of aggression meant that EACH AND EVERY death was MURDER even if you followed the laws of war (not killing enemies you take prisoner, doing your best to avoid civilian casualties etc). This was somthing laid into the moral and legal fabric by the allies after WW2, yet here we are violating that very concept.

BTW, there are 2 components to a war. If the cause is just and if the actual battle is fought justly. I would say the cause is not just, I would say that the battle is not fought justly but that there are the majority of soldiers who DO themselves fight the war justly and do their best to abide by the rules of war. Of course, that cant change that all their kills are deemed murder since its an aggressive war and it cant change the unjust targets they are given or the unjust orders they are given.

I think this soldier illustrates the complicated nature of a soldier ordered into an unjust war.

http://armyofdude.blogspot.com/

Working with 1920s – A Sunni insurgent group we’ve been battling for months, responsible for the death of my friend and numerous attacks, agreed to fight Al Qaeda alongside us. Since then, they’ve grown into a much more organized, lethal force. They use this organization to steal cars and intimidate and torture the local population, or anyone they accuse of being linked to Al Qaeda. The Gestapo of the 21st century, sanctioned by the United States Army.

And there the US is repeating the same ol mistakes. Is this not supporting terrorists? Did he not just compare the group the US is supporting to a nazi group? This is not a new tactic for the US, its just one thats proven to be bad and comes back to haunt over and over. The islamic extremists we supported, armed, trained and funded in afghanistan against the USSR later merged and formed the taliban....was that really a wise move on our part? Should we repeat actions that inevitably lead to outcomes we claim to fight against?

In the future, I want my children to grow up with the belief that what I did here was wrong, in a society that doesn’t deem that idea unpatriotic.

Theres a soldier who dosent mind admitting that what he is doing there is wrong...he isnt the only one either.

 

[Ruby]

BTW, RGS, you can keep neg repping me til the cows come home...it wont have the desired effect to silence me or make me change my views, or change the words I use to suit you and make you comfortable. Its a very obvious bully tactic by you but it will only work if I allow it to...and thats not somthing I will allow. I will continue to speak my mind as I see fit and use the words as I see fit and will continue to support those views with facts and evidence.

Happy neg repping!

 

[Gunny]

Lastly, my point that the US is a prime example of state sponsored terrorism. I dont think its ONE thing either, I think the US has a very clear pattern spanning decades of using terrorism, supporting terrorism and enhancing terrorism.

Examples I have given and that support my point are our coups in the middle east (such as Iran when we installed the Shah) and our coups in the Latin American region...I cant think of a country in the region we havent touched. We have sent in death squads, funded terrorist groups, overthrown democratically and popularly backed govts to install brutal military regimes and denied the very basic right of self determination.

We have invaded the nations as we did in Panama illegally and immorally.

These are examples of our own terrorism. These are things WE ADMIT to, there are many more incidents we dont yet admit to but have an overwhelming amount of evidence against us.

Progams such as USAID, NED, World bank and the CIA are tax funded, state supported entities that facillitate our terrorism.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/76824/mike_davis_return_to_sender_car_bombs_part_2_



Here is an incident when the US used a CAR BOMB on a residential street...isnt that terrorism?

Not only do all these things meet the definition of terrorism (our own definition) but if those acts were commited AGAINST us, we wouldnt hesitate to call it terrorism. The rules should be the same for us....the act itself should be judged against the criteria and if it meets the criteria...then by george thats what it is!

Please tell me why it would be ok for another nation to finance and plan an overthrow of the US govt and install a dictator/military regime that is sympathetic and friendly to them while being hostile to american citizens? Wouldnt that be deemed terrorism of the worst kind? Its what we have done to NUMEROUS nations, that makes us terrorists.

Using the CIA is the best example you can come up with? Leaving out the fact that the CIA has been under fire from every side for being a rogue agency that plays as dirty as it wants to and holds itself above our laws?

Calling the US terrorists is absurd. Any form of terrorism used by individuals is a violation of US law ... which makes your argument baseless.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No you are avoiding an important fact, I am guessing on purpose.

International law (which we were part of creating and agreed to) states we must meet one of the two criterias....we did bring it to the UN for sanctioning and they said no. Its really that simple. We can try to search for and cling to any loop hole we create, but it wont change ANYTHING at all.

We have no legal or moral basis for what we have done here.

Its also interesting to note that in the nuremberg trials it was determined that wars of aggression meant that EACH AND EVERY death was MURDER even if you followed the laws of war (not killing enemies you take prisoner, doing your best to avoid civilian casualties etc). This was somthing laid into the moral and legal fabric by the allies after WW2, yet here we are violating that very concept.

BTW, there are 2 components to a war. If the cause is just and if the actual battle is fought justly. I would say the cause is not just, I would say that the battle is not fought justly but that there are the majority of soldiers who DO themselves fight the war justly and do their best to abide by the rules of war. Of course, that cant change that all their kills are deemed murder since its an aggressive war and it cant change the unjust targets they are given or the unjust orders they are given.

I think this soldier illustrates the complicated nature of a soldier ordered into an unjust war.

http://armyofdude.blogspot.com/



And there the US is repeating the same ol mistakes. Is this not supporting terrorists? Did he not just compare the group the US is supporting to a nazi group? This is not a new tactic for the US, its just one thats proven to be bad and comes back to haunt over and over. The islamic extremists we supported, armed, trained and funded in afghanistan against the USSR later merged and formed the taliban....was that really a wise move on our part? Should we repeat actions that inevitably lead to outcomes we claim to fight against?



Theres a soldier who dosent mind admitting that what he is doing there is wrong...he isnt the only one either.

Yup, we must accept the opinion of a tiny miniscule minority when they agree with you and ignore the HUGE vast majority that do NOT agree with you.

I am waiting still for the UN sanction, the UN resolution and or the Court case to prove your point. Not only hasn't the UN done any of that, they are working in concert with us in Iraq, they have recognized the Government you claim is not legal and they are working to help that "illegal" Government grow stronger and become more stable.

No Nation requires approval from the UN to do anything. The UN is NOT a Government, they can not tell a sovereign nation what they can and can not do. They can pass resolutions and ask member states to follow those resolutions. Show me again the resolution condemning the US and her allies for Invading Iraq.

 

[Ruby]

Yup, we must accept the opinion of a tiny miniscule minority when they agree with you and ignore the HUGE vast majority that do NOT agree with you.

I am waiting still for the UN sanction, the UN resolution and or the Court case to prove your point. Not only hasn't the UN done any of that, they are working in concert with us in Iraq, they have recognized the Government you claim is not legal and they are working to help that "illegal" Government grow stronger and become more stable.

No Nation requires approval from the UN to do anything. The UN is NOT a Government, they can not tell a sovereign nation what they can and can not do. They can pass resolutions and ask member states to follow those resolutions. Show me again the resolution condemning the US and her allies for Invading Iraq.

There was no TINY MINORITY, the UN is not a tiny minority. You can pretend that it must be a UN SANCTION AGAINST, but thats not the international laws we helped to create and agreed to. It must be sanctioned in the first place, that sanction was asked for by the US and the answer was NO.

They are not actually working with the US in the way you would like to spin it. They have been involved on a humanitarian level and have also been bullied by the US which is not really anything new. I think the US admin was downright shocked (as was I quite frankly) that they werent able to bully the UN into sanctioning the invasion of Iraq to give it a legal basis.

The US also cannot tell a soveriegn nation what they can and cannot do....yet we are doing just that.

There is a difference between what is moral and legal to do and what is done via the sheer force of power. What we CAN do and get away with exceeds the limits of moral standards and international law. We can either bolster a world run by a set of prinicpals and laws or one where sheer force and power rule....so far we support the latter which means we use state sponsored terrorism since thats exactly what a nation is doing when it abandons laws and morals in favor of bully power.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There was no TINY MINORITY, the UN is not a tiny minority. You can pretend that it must be a UN SANCTION AGAINST, but thats not the international laws we helped to create and agreed to. It must be sanctioned in the first place, that sanction was asked for by the US and the answer was NO.

They are not actually working with the US in the way you would like to spin it. They have been involved on a humanitarian level and have also been bullied by the US which is not really anything new. I think the US admin was downright shocked (as was I quite frankly) that they werent able to bully the UN into sanctioning the invasion of Iraq to give it a legal basis.

The US also cannot tell a soveriegn nation what they can and cannot do....yet we are doing just that.

There is a difference between what is moral and legal to do and what is done via the sheer force of power. What we CAN do and get away with exceeds the limits of moral standards and international law. We can either bolster a world run by a set of prinicpals and laws or one where sheer force and power rule....so far we support the latter which means we use state sponsored terrorism since thats exactly what a nation is doing when it abandons laws and morals in favor of bully power.

Wrong again. There is NO "law" that requires a nation to get "approval" to do as it wishes from a foreign entity. As to the specific UN entity, it has not done anything at all to proclaim the US OR HER ALLIES in breach of any Treaty or any "Law" at all. One is not guilty of something simply because they did not get permission from an Entity that has no power before acting.

It is specific. The UN MUST act with a Resolution for anything to be "official" You can pretend otherwise all you want. That is how it works, always has, always will. The UN can not be silent, but still be condemning a nation. Doesn't work that way.

If we violated the UN Charter it REQUIRES that the UN say so officially for it to be true, you don't get to pretend their silence is proof. You can not on the one hand claim we violated some "Law" and on the other hand claim the failure of the supposed power behind the "Law" to make its case and make a finding is PROOF we broke said "Law".

Not only has the UN failed to pass a resolution proclaiming we broke the UN Charter, they have not even DISCUSSED doing so. Your claim is false ON IT's FACE.

You might have a shred of an argument if a Resolution had been proposed and then defeated by the evil US and her minions. You do not even have that. Thus the actions the US and HER ALLIES took in Iraq and continue to take are not "Illegal" under the UN Charter.

Further they are not illegal under the US Constitution or her laws. All 3 Branches of the US Government have agreed from day one that the action was both legal and justified. All 3 Branches CONTINUE to this day to make the actions legal and justified.

 

[Ruby]

Wrong again. There is NO "law" that requires a nation to get "approval" to do as it wishes from a foreign entity. As to the specific UN entity, it has not done anything at all to proclaim the US OR HER ALLIES in breach of any Treaty or any "Law" at all. One is not guilty of something simply because they did not get permission from an Entity that has no power before acting.

It is specific. The UN MUST act with a Resolution for anything to be "official" You can pretend otherwise all you want. That is how it works, always has, always will. The UN can not be silent, but still be condemning a nation. Doesn't work that way.

If we violated the UN Charter it REQUIRES that the UN say so officially for it to be true, you don't get to pretend their silence is proof. You can not on the one hand claim we violated some "Law" and on the other hand claim the failure of the supposed power behind the "Law" to make its case and make a finding is PROOF we broke said "Law".

Not only has the UN failed to pass a resolution proclaiming we broke the UN Charter, they have not even DISCUSSED doing so. Your claim is false ON IT's FACE.

You might have a shred of an argument if a Resolution had been proposed and then defeated by the evil US and her minions. You do not even have that. Thus the actions the US and HER ALLIES took in Iraq and continue to take are not "Illegal" under the UN Charter.

Further they are not illegal under the US Constitution or her laws. All 3 Branches of the US Government have agreed from day one that the action was both legal and justified. All 3 Branches CONTINUE to this day to make the actions legal and justified.

The US wouldnt need a UN mandate if it was a case of self defense, but that isnt a case we can make. That is why we are left with the second condition which is to get UN approval. The UN wasnt silent, we did go and ask for their approval and they said no....nothing silent about that.

We are also in violation of the geneva conventions..but via sheer force and will we will get away with that for a bit as well. This is also not legal according to US law but rule of law dosent seem to matter much in the US anymore...its more about the law of the jungle (what a sad state of affairs that is and certainly nothing to be proud of).

It seems the US now favors terrorism as its methods instead of any rule of law.

I still havent heard you claim it would be right for the US to be invaded so that another nation could change our regime and that be considered a legal act. A case can certainly be made that we are dangerous to the world and are guilty of waging aggressive wars. A case can also be made that we abuse our own citizens...the chemicals and illnesses our own citizens have been exposed to by our own govt would certainly qualify. Our support of numerous terrorists and terrorist groups can also be illustrated rather easily...all supporting evidence would come straight from US govt documents!

We cant make others adhere to rules we arent ready to live by...unless we just adopt the law of the jungle, which it seems we have.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The US wouldnt need a UN mandate if it was a case of self defense, but that isnt a case we can make. That is why we are left with the second condition which is to get UN approval. The UN wasnt silent, we did go and ask for their approval and they said no....nothing silent about that.

We are also in violation of the geneva conventions..but via sheer force and will we will get away with that for a bit as well. This is also not legal according to US law but rule of law dosent seem to matter much in the US anymore...its more about the law of the jungle (what a sad state of affairs that is and certainly nothing to be proud of).

It seems the US now favors terrorism as its methods instead of any rule of law.

I still havent heard you claim it would be right for the US to be invaded so that another nation could change our regime and that be considered a legal act. A case can certainly be made that we are dangerous to the world and are guilty of waging aggressive wars. A case can also be made that we abuse our own citizens...the chemicals and illnesses our own citizens have been exposed to by our own govt would certainly qualify. Our support of numerous terrorists and terrorist groups can also be illustrated rather easily...all supporting evidence would come straight from US govt documents!

We cant make others adhere to rules we arent ready to live by...unless we just adopt the law of the jungle, which it seems we have.

Yup sure thing, cause you say it, is there for true. Akin to claiming someone murdered someone and your proof is because the police didn't arrest him and didn't charge him. He is guilty because no court charged him or tried him or made a finding of fact. Further not only didn't the police arrest him, they hired him and are helping him. Yup stellar logic you have.

 

[Ruby]

Yup sure thing, cause you say it, is there for true. Akin to claiming someone murdered someone and your proof is because the police didn't arrest him and didn't charge him. He is guilty because no court charged him or tried him or made a finding of fact. Further not only didn't the police arrest him, they hired him and are helping him. Yup stellar logic you have.

Actually the information has been linked to you numerous times by a few people.

When you ask permission, you get an answer and when we asked permission to invade Iraq we got an answer...it was no.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually the information has been linked to you numerous times by a few people.

When you ask permission, you get an answer and when we asked permission to invade Iraq we got an answer...it was no.

The resolution condemning us has been linked to me numerous times? And I repeat sovereign Nations don't need to ask " permission" do anything from the UN.

 

[Ruby]

The resolution condemning us has been linked to me numerous times? And I repeat sovereign Nations don't need to ask " permission" do anything from the UN.

I can see how hard you work to be ill-informed and in some ways its consistency is admirable, in a very sick way of course.

No you have been linked to all information that shows you just how illegal the war is. Nations DO need to get a UN mandate OR it has to be self defense. Those are the two conditions, a nation must meet at LEAST one of those conditions for the war to have a legal basis. The US has met NEITHER.

Its really just that simple and uncomplicated yet you seem to illustrate that even such a very simple concept is far too complicated for you to understand. Its the kind of ignorance that is a choice.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I can see how hard you work to be ill-informed and in some ways its consistency is admirable, in a very sick way of course.

No you have been linked to all information that shows you just how illegal the war is. Nations DO need to get a UN mandate OR it has to be self defense. Those are the two conditions, a nation must meet at LEAST one of those conditions for the war to have a legal basis. The US has met NEITHER.

Its really just that simple and uncomplicated yet you seem to illustrate that even such a very simple concept is far too complicated for you to understand. Its the kind of ignorance that is a choice.

Yes, I am sure, kindly point to me the section in our Constitution that spells out we have no sovereign rights and must seek approval for any action from a NON Governmental Foreign agency.

Ohh and if you trot out the treaty part, provide me with the Court case that has found the US in violation of her treaty obligations. Or better yet, an actual binding statement from the UN Security Council that states we violated the UN Charter or any treaty we have signed.

One is not guilty because no one has accused them of something, nor are they guilty because no one has charged them with a violation. The UN MUST take action, they must actually propose a resolution stating the US violated the Charter. Failing that, in fact, the UN does not think a violation occurred.

Further proof of that would be the fact that the UN is working hand in glove with the "illegal" Government in Iraq and is working as well with the Immoral mass murdering, Nazi American Government. Pretty much blows your argument out of the water.

But do keep claiming total silence on the issue and no action taken at all, is proof of condemnation.