Spreading Democracy - Mission Being Accomplished!

[Electrophil]

I think he gassed them. No.... I'm sure he ordered them gassed. It's common knowledge they tried to assassinate him, and take over his government. Leaders on Earth tend to retaliate against groups plotting an overthrow. We do it here in the states. How many people were prosecuted over Waco? Or that clan up in the Northeast... I forgot the state it was in.

And we also have public beheadings. Well.... We don't behead, and our gassings/electrocutions are indoors... and public viewings are behind one way mirrors.... We are a little more politically correct about it.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but you have to admit... That's what us earthlings do to preserve our governments. It's not like we are sending flowers and candy to the terrorist networks. We wiped 2 governments off the face of the earth.

Disclaimer: I am not taking up for this evil dictator that was our ally for 4 decades....who we sold weapons to.... who we sent military trainers too... who sent their senior military to our schools....who's Ambassador shrugged when he was threatening Kuwait. All I'm doing is stating a fact.

Somebody do an experiment. Call up the White House and threaten the president. Do it from your home phone. Note the time... Then have a relative tell us how long it took for a battering ram to take out your front door. But!! Don't be defiant when they show up. You won't live through it.

[mohrds]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

Two wrongs don't make a right, but you have to admit...

... that three rights make a left!

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by mohrds

... that three rights make a left!

Where's my calculator?

[It's Just Eric]

OOW!!! MY EYES HURT!!
That's alot to read all at once. So um... Yeah, I thought the comics were kinda funny...

On a lighter note, the war in the middle east is still happening right now, regardless of if its wrong right left slightly skewed or drawn out. I stopped watching the news a LONG time ago, I couldnt even tell ya what country the troops are invading now. Im not the only one, am I? Seems to me that the US has been at war with someone or another for as long as it's been an imperalistic nation.

If Alfred T. Monohan or whatever that guys name was just kept his little book to himself, we probly wouldnt have been at war for the past....Too many years.

Hell, why blame a guy that wrote a book advocating the buildup of a strong navey to take over foreign lands to protect shipping and make more money for an isolated Americian economy when we can blame Henry Ford for mass producing internal combustine engines instead of hydrogen fuel cells. Or mabey we should blame Homo-Egasters for evolving diffrently than the ancestors of Neandertols? Stupid pre-homo-sapiens not getting along and attacking eachoter. First frosm of racism and war right there. Hell, even better, lets just blame dinosaurs and other organic matter for decomposing into crude oil rather than fossilizing. Stupid organic matter, making life so trivial.

I'll try to keep this one relatively short, though I'm prepared to back things up with LOTS of detailed evidence

As early as August 1944, it was obvious to most people that the Allies were going to win the war. Questions arose over the treatment of the losers. Some proposals were rejected fairly quickly, such as US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau’s ideas that enemy leaders should be shot upon capture, German POWs should be used to rebuild Europe, and that Germany should have all her industrial capability destroyed and be remade into a purely agricultural society.

One month later, in September 1944, the framework for the Nuremberg trials began to take shape. Colonel Murray Bernays, of the War Department's Special Project Branch, proposed that the Nazi regime should be treated as a criminal plot and court proceedings should be held. William Chanler, a friend of Secretary of War Stinson, suggested that the waging of a war of aggression should be a crime. In February of 1945, Roosevelt met with Churchill and Stalin at Yalta where they agreed to prosecute all captured Axis leaders once the war was over.

On November 20th, 1945 at 10 a.m., the International Military Tribunal began hearing cases in Nuremberg, Germany.

Now, at this point you might be wondering what the heck this has to do with the current situation in Iraq. Let me further clarify.

The defendents were indicted on 4 counts:
Count One: Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War
The "common plan or conspiracy" charge was designed to get around the problem of how to deal with crimes committed before the war. The defendants charged under Count One were accused of agreeing to commit crimes.
Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace"
Including “the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.”
Count Three: War Crimes
These were the more “traditional” violations of the law of war including treatment of prisoners of war, slave labor, and use of outlawed weapons.
Count Four: Crimes Against Humanity
This count involved the actions in concentration camps and other death rampages.

The USA has lately planned and waged two wars of aggression: Afghanistan, and Iraq. It could be argued that using the same arguments now as were used back then by Chief U. S. Prosecutor Robert Jackson, various top US officials would be in violation of at least counts one, two, and possibly also count three with Abu Ghraib and other POW abuse incidents that have occurred over the years.

What do you think?

[Electrophil]

I'm not real sure if anybody could include Afghanistan as an "aggressive" war. It was more of a retaliation for not giving up Osama. I know they said they had no clue where he was to hand him over, but look how quick we found......

Oh... wait a minute..

[mohrds]

Originally Posted by Bipa

The USA has lately planned and waged two wars of aggression: Afghanistan, and Iraq. It could be argued that using the same arguments now as were used back then by Chief U. S. Prosecutor Robert Jackson, various top US officials would be in violation of at least counts one, two, and possibly also count three with Abu Ghraib and other POW abuse incidents that have occurred over the years.

What do you think?

The problem with that line of thinking is that neither of those are wars of aggression. The coalition forces (more than just the US) have no intention of staying, no intention of adding any more states to the US, no intention in being involved in their government.

Now look at Germany during WW2. They wanted to permanently occupy Europe as Nazi Property. They wanted to have the Nazi party be their government.

While I will agree this is a war, this certainly is not a war of aggression.

BTW: Its hard for me to swallow comparing the humiliation tactics of Abu Ghraib with the mass genocide of the Nazi Jewish camps.

Doug

[mohrds]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

I'm not real sure if anybody could include Afghanistan as an "aggressive" war. It was more of a retaliation for not giving up Osama. I know they said they had no clue where he was to hand him over, but look how quick we found......

Oh... wait a minute..

We have him, he's being kept in a hidden facility until the next election and then he'll be brought out for publicity.

BTW, That was something I heard a life-long Democrat say, I didn't make it up.

Doug

[Electrophil]

Yeah, but it wasn't Kerry. I forgot which one said it.

Usama is in all probability dead. He had serious health issues prior to the War in Afghanistan. If on the other hand they killed him, they will never admit it and make him a martyr. And I don't blame them. It would be great to capture him alive and drag him around in front of the press on a leash and collar. But killed? He would be even more dangerous than when he was active. I just don't believe....even if he is alive... if he has anything to do with the leadership anymore anyway. Al-Queda has taken on a decentralized government. There is no longer a "headquarters".

The strange thing now is Zarqawi in Iraq. When those Al-Queda guys blew themselves up yesterday, the brass was extremely quick in saying Zarqawi wasn't one of them. I do believe they know exactly where he is, and are not hitting him on purpose. I think they have learned how he works, and they don't want to have a change in the leadership at this time. Nothing wrong with that either. We don't know. His "second in command" might be a bigger lunatic than he is.

Originally Posted by mohrds

BTW: Its hard for me to swallow comparing the humiliation tactics of Abu Ghraib with the mass genocide of the Nazi Jewish camps.

Doug

Nope, the mass genocide was count 4, which I specifically did NOT include in possible current indictments. Treatment of prisoners of war comes under count three. So no comparison of the two was ever made, nor implied by my post.

[Electrophil]

In my opinion, I can see count#1 of an Agressive war being used for Iraq. Regardless of political gain, there is a strong case of financial gain by the senior members of the administration. That includes both the Bush Family, and VP Cheney.

The UN can't touch them though, and the only "government' in the world strong enough to cause a litigation would be the Peoples of the United States. But.... We are a republic. All we can do is whine long enough for our congress to do something about it. And there is NO WAY a charge that serious will ever be leveled against the administration. I will be immensely satisfied with just a simple impeachment on the grounds of misleading the people of the United States with trumped up intelligence and scare tactics. And that's not going to happen, for then we will have Cheney take over as President. If they indict him too, then it's Condaleezza Rice. Heck... If one goes, all three would go. We'd have to hold special elections. Who's after the Secretary of State? Isn't it the Majority leader in Congress? Heck!! He's already indicted!! Has anybody seen Bob the janitor lately? Tell him he needs to buy a suit.

Lets also never forget that the newly elected President of Afghanistan was a paid Advisor to the Haliburton Corporation. Coincidence? Depends on if he allows the building of that pipeline Haliburton wants. The pipeline that the Taliban were dragging their feet on wanting better terms.

[mohrds]

Originally Posted by Bipa

Nope, the mass genocide was count 4, which I specifically did NOT include in possible current indictments. Treatment of prisoners of war comes under count three. So no comparison of the two was ever made, nor implied by my post.

Sorry, I got lost in the length of post

[mohrds]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

In my opinion, I can see count#1 of an Agressive war being used for Iraq. Regardless of political gain, there is a strong case of financial gain by the senior members of the administration. That includes both the Bush Family, and VP Cheney.

Lets also never forget that the newly elected President of Afghanistan was a paid Advisor to the Haliburton Corporation. Coincidence? Depends on if he allows the building of that pipeline Haliburton wants. The pipeline that the Taliban were dragging their feet on wanting better terms.

Even if Haliburton takes over running Afghanistan, it still won't even touch the abuse of power and government for personal gain that the Clinton Administration had.

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by mohrds

Even if Haliburton takes over running Afghanistan, it still won't even touch the abuse of power and government for personal gain that the Clinton Administration had.

Oh!!! Dem fiyten' werds!!!

Elaborate.

Originally Posted by mohrds
While I will agree this is a war, this certainly is not a war of aggression.

Doug

Thanks Doug, I was hoping someone would say that. Now I get to pull out some of my details

Originally Posted by mohrds
Sorry, I got lost in the length of post

I'll attempt to keep it brief

You are taking issue with the phrase “war of aggression”. Well, to put it in simple terms, war is started when A attacks B. A is the aggressor, and B is the defender. Defence is always allowed. Attacking is almost never allowed under international law. So when someone writes that the U.S.A. is conducting a war of aggression, it just means that the U.S.A. attacked and invaded first.

Perhaps the following will clear it up a bit.

International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
Proposed Definition of "Aggression", Submitted by American Delegation, July 25, 1945

SUGGESTED TEXT FOR CONSIDERATION AS AN ADDITION TO ARTICLE 6

An aggressor, for the purposes of this article, means that state which is first to commit any of the following actions:

1. Declaration of war upon another State.

2. Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State.

3. Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State.

No political, military, economic or other considerations may serve as an excuse or justification for such actions, but exercise of the right of legitimate self-defense, that is to say, resistance to an act of aggression, or action to assist a State which has been subjected to aggression, shall not constitute a war of aggression.
__________________________________________________ ___________________

So the first Gulf War was NOT an act of aggression, but the second, current Iraq war is.

I have way more stuff I could add… lots more quotes direct from transcripts of the Nuremberg trial and the various planning meetings held to establish the framework. Here’s just a quick taste. Let me know if you’d like to read more.

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it.

And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."

Statement by Justice Jackson on War Trials Agreement; August 12, 1945