Re: War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

Watson A. Nayme wrote:

> "Pat Hines" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Starblade Darksquall wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > You left out,
> > > > "Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House.
>
> Its
>
> > > > main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN
>
> charter,
>
> > > > which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including
> > > > pre-emptive self-defence. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush
> > > > reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force" to defeat the
>
> threat
>
> > > > from Baghdad.
> > >
> > > Pre-emptive self defense should be authorized, but limited to
> > > situations where the one doing the pre-emptive self defense can show
> > > that it was necessary, or that using rational means they had good
> > > reason to believe that it was, in fact, necessary.
> >
> > Which, of course was clearly not the case between Iraq and any other
>
> country.
>
> > I'll point out one more time that the Iraqi's at the height of their
>
> military
>
> > prowess in the mid-eighties, couldn't successfully invade and hold a small
> > portion of a country, Iran, run by muslim priests.  Just the opposite in
>
> fact,
>
> > Iran was poised to overrun a goodly portion of southeastern Iraq, however,
>
> the
>
> > US government under Reagan provided real time intelligence on Iranian
>
> troop
>
> > movements to enable the Iraqi's to prevent being routed by the Iranians.
>
>
> A lot of things changed since Reagan, for example the gassed Kurds and
> invaded Kuwait.

	The Iraqi's gassed Iranians with chemical weapons manufactured from base 
materials supplied by the US government.  The Iranians gassed the Iraqi's with 
chemical weapons made from base chemicals supplied by either France or Germany. 
 So what?

> Afterwards they refused to comply to cease fire conditions, which of course
> led to the downfall of Saddam who during the pending first attack on Irag
> had ordered his field officers to use chem/bio weapons. HE SHOULDN'T HAVE
> DONE THAT IF HE COULDN'T BACK IT UP.

	The US government had no authorization from the UN to attack anyone.  The US 
government cannot use a treaty from another entity to justify an invasion of a 
sovereign nation.  Your knowledge of US law is appallingly poor.

> > > > The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification,
> > > > arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US
>
> and
>
> > > > its allies were under imminent threat.
> > >
> > > Which I doubt it was. Saddam wasn't going to use those weapons against
> > > us. He wasn't stupid. He was evil, but he wasn't stupid.
>
>
> Everyone (except at least 19 terrorists) doubted the WTC was under imminent
> thrreat. How does one know they are under imminent threat if the enemy
> doesn't tell them? When did we know Pearl Harbor was under imminent threat?
>
>
> > Evil, and more than a little bit naive about world affairs.  He apparently
> > didn't realize he was being baited into Kuwait by Bush the first.
>
>
> Naive enough to murder over 400,000 of his own people, have rape and torture
> rooms and be linked with bin Laden at least 13 years.
>
>
> > > > Coalition officials countered that the security council had already
>
> approved
>
> > > > the use of force in resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of
>
> "serious
>
> > > > consequences" if Iraq failed to give a complete ac counting of its
>
> weapons
>
> > > > programmes.
> > >
> > > Just a question. Is a resolution the international equivilent of a
> > > contract?
> >
> > If it is, it's between the two signatories; in the case in point, that's
>
> Iraq
>
> > and the UN.  Gulf War I was fought entire under UN authorization and
>
> control.
>
> > Day to day military operations weren't controlled by the UN, but the
>
> ceasefire
>
> > was a UN treaty.
>
>
> At this point you apparently need to be reminded that we are a member of the
> UN, at least for now.

	What's your point?

> As we discover more and more just how unfriendly the UN is to America, the
> more Americans are wanting the us out of the UN and UN out of the US.

	I've supported the US departure from the UN for over 20 years, and you?  I'd 
suggest you go to http://www.getusout.org and study the facts.  The US 
government cannot use a UN resolution as a fig leaf to thwart the US 
Constitution which does not allow preemptive invasions of foreign nations.  Need 
I remind you that the US Constitution is an envelope within which the US 
government must remain.  If an activity is not authorized, government is 
forbidden that activity.

> > > > Other council members disagreed, but American and British lawyers argued
> > > > that the threat of force had been implicit since the first Gulf war,
>
> which
>
> > > > was ended only by a ceasefire."
> > >
> > >
> > > If this WAS just a ceasefire, then all that means is that we were, in
> > > esscence, still at war with them ever since the Gulf War. So what is
> > > everybody whining about?
> > > (...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
> >
> > The only whining I hear are those that know the US government staged an
>
> illegal
>
> > invasion of a third world nation in hopes of controlling one of its
>
> national
>
> > resources, namely oil.  They're in high whine because the Iraqi's are
>
> mounting a
>
> > skillful, effective guerrilla defense of their country that will
>
> ultimately triumph.
>
> The only whining I hear is from the left wingers that hate Bush and America.

	Well, you'd better clean the shit out of your ears, I'm about as far from a 
sociofascist liberal as one can get; unlike George W. Bush who is a sociofascist 
(as are all neoconservatives), one of the current terms for an American liberal.

	Sending American troops worldwide for vested American interests is most 
certainly a sociofascist activity.  See Franklin Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson 
for previous examples.

Pat Hines