Re: Evidence Mounts That U.S. Military is LYING About "Victory At Samarra"

"David Hartung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in inimitable style:

> 
> " fãhç" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "David Hartung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Once again, you have failed to make the case that the invasion was
>> illegal,
>> > especially under US law.
>>
>> US law is not valid outside US borders, only international law.  The
>> UN refused to give Bush the legal right to invade Iraq, therefore
>> Bush's invasion was illegal.  Case closed.
> 
> True, if you believe that all legal wars must have the blessing of the
> UN.

The charter clearly explains that a nation can act with deliberate speed in 
its defense, with need to obtain the approval of the U.N.

The U.N. however warns nations of the consequences of them acting in their 
own defense when nothing of the kind is true.

It's much like you taking action to defend yourself against a criminal sure 
to attack you.  In that action, you kill the criminal.  Nonetheless you 
must submit yourself to police scrutiny, and the police/district attorney 
must be satisfied that your action was a justifiable homocide.   The U.N. 
is there as the conscience of humanity to assure each nation behaves 
according to the laws of nations.

> Such an idea is, of course, ridiculous. By that standard, just
> about every war since the UN was founded has been illegal.

If the U.N. signed off on it, and the act of war taken was consistent with 
an act of national defense spelled out in the charter, then the war could 
not be illegal.

The invasion of Iraq did not meet these criteria.  Bush's actions since 
"major operations" ended are also consistent with a war of 
conquest/aggression, and the purpose of this war lies beneath the sands of 
Iraq (and no, these are not Saddam's mass graves, as if they ever would 
be).