Should Clinton Face the same punishment for Kosovo as Bush faces for Iraq?

[BrentWill4U]

Many of you believe the the Iraq war is Illegal because the UN did not give a resolution supporting it. However, the same can be said for Kosovo which is a war in which many Serbian civilians were killed because we used high altitude bombing exclusively. If the war in Iraq is illegal and Bush should be tried as a war criminal, should President Clinton also be tried?

[MercutioATC]

1. This could get interesting...

:popcorn:

[jobycom]

5. Nah, I think we're bored of answering that one. Maybe when the Freeps

ask something original and a bit challenging, I'll pay attention.

[Liberal Veteran]

6. Meh....I've seen better flamebait.

That one is just kinda...sad and shows a lack of imagination.

[Dinger]

66. Ditto nt

[stepnw1f]

36. nah... it's getting old actually... (nt)

[gatorboy]

2. What do YOU think?

Oh, undeclared one? :p

[BrentWill4U]

8. I think that neither is illegal..

However, the current war is a tragic and sad mistake, while in Kosovo, Clinton did the right thing.

[kentuck]

39. That's quite a distinction you make ....

But Clinton did have NATO assisting him, didn't he? That's a good share of world opinion. Who did Bush get to help in Iraq? Mongolia?

[kiki]

83. You forgot Poland. n/t

[alfredo]

3. Under Clinton the Kosovo war was not to steal natural

resources. It wasn't a UN operation, it was a Nato operation. Since then the genocide has stopped and that was the goal. If it was a war crime, the Repugs would have hauled Clinton before a war crimes tribunal. Also, Clinton didn't ask for immunity from international law, neither did the top generals. They did their best to act in a lawful manner.

I do agree about high altitude bombing. It causes too much destruction of innocent lives.

[BrentWill4U]

7. Whatever the goal..

Do you not have to operate under international law and therefore respect institutions such as the UN?

[alfredo]

25. I think it has to do with who is willing to commit to the

mission and who is best suited for the mission. Anyway, we were operating under the NATO treaty. The justification was the wars in that region created a threat for one or more NATO members.

[larrysh]

4. The difference is......

President Clinton is a Democrat.....and we don't eat our own!!!!!!

[havocmom]

9. LOL THAT"s the difference between Iraq and Kosovo?

The mind reels...

[Exultant Democracy]

10. Ha, eating our own is the official party pastime.

[jobycom]

12. Looky. Teammates!

NATO, with Clinton, intervened in a war that was already ongoing, in accordance with a number of treaties signed between the various parties. George Bush lied to invade a nation at peace. Even so, he was protested heavily in his own party, but the war ended so quickly that the one large protest that was planned fell just after the war stopped, so only 30K protestors showed up.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Gee. That Was insightful. And Inaccurate, And Ignorant, And Wrong,

and without substance, and without merit, and without justification.

[SensibleAmerican]

59. To be honest, I supported the War in Kosovo

And initially I supported the War in Iraq (along with 26 Democratic Senators). However, the execution of the War in Iraq should be what's in question.

[Toots]

80. Which justification did you support?

WMDs, Al Qaeda link, Saddam equals Hitler, Bring Democracy to Iraqis... What was your justification for the US occupation of Iraq?

[fishwax]

93. you're not alone

Most americans supported the war at the beginning, but most don't now.

I think that there is plenty of cause to question both the execution of the war, as you suggest, as well as the roots of the war, including the various deceptions employed by the white house in order to sell it to the American people. To not address that is, imo, to do a disservice to the military, the public, democracy, etc.

[LoZoccolo]

11. The UN did condemn the Racak incident and eventually used it...

...as the foundation for a war crimes charge against Milosevic; after this NATO got involved. Are you accusing Clinton of fighting an illegal war because the right form wasn't filled out or something?

[BrentWill4U]

13. No..

Because there was no UN resolution authorizing our use of force.

[alfredo]

28. NATO is a mutual defense treaty. That's where we went for

authorization. We did the bombing because we had the hardware and expertise. We also had the best general in charge, Wesley Clark. http://securingamerica.com/


http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/82

[BrentWill4U]

30. So any group of country can approve a war and make it legal..

Then what is wrong with the group the approved the current war?

[havocmom]

34. They did it for profit this time?

And in Kosovo, there was already a war and attempted genocide going on before NATO got involved to stop it?

Gads, are there sunspots or somthing today?

[stepnw1f]

37. Just Belligerence

[BrentWill4U]

40. Okay..

Then who should decide that the goal in Kosovo was just and therefore not an illegal war?

[havocmom]

58. It was requested by an international alliance

NATO, ever hear of it?

[alfredo]

48. there are safeguards built in. Decisions have to be unanimous.

In other words, you better have a damn good reason to act.

[dorktv]

43. UN is not the be all end all you know. Clinton did what he had to do

under the constraints that he was operating under. Remember he had a hostile congress, a do nothing UN, and a mistrustful military...He put off using the US ground forces until he was able to get Russia to help out. Had they not done so he was about to send in ground troops even though that would have caused him HUGE problems.

The two situations are not the same at all.

[SensibleAmerican]

57. And the UN didn't condemn Saddam Hussein?

Neither war was supported by the UN ... Whilst I don't believe that George Bush has committed any war crimes, I do believe that the War in Iraq was a much bigger error in judgment.

[malaise]

73. There is no war with Iraq

there was an invasion.

[LoZoccolo]

89. Maybe you could get them to fill out the Kosovo paperwork now. n/t

[Glorfindel]

14. "many Serbian civilians paid were killed" ...what?

How much did they get paid to be killed? Surely this is a typing error. But to answer your question, HELL, NO! The Kosovo action was to prevent genocide, not to seize some else's natural resources or make up for B*shit's daddy's failures. :puke:

[BrentWill4U]

17. Yes..

It was a typo. Then your argument is the cause that you are fighting for, not rather you have gotten permission from the UN, determines rather a war is legal or illegal. Who determines if the cause is just?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

15. Heh, heh, heh..... it's only an issue when someone else does it....

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html

Replicating the Iran Contragate Pattern

Remember Ollie North and the Nicaraguan Contras under the Reagan Administration when weapons financed by the drug trade were channeled to "freedom fighters" in Washington's covert war against the Sandinista government. The same pattern was used in the Balkans to arm and equip the Mujahideen fighting in the ranks of the Bosnian Muslim army against the Armed Forces of the Yugoslav Federation.

Throughout the 1990s, the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was used by the CIA as a go-between -- to channel weapons and Mujahideen mercenaries to the Bosnian Muslim Army in the civil war in Yugoslavia. According to a report of the London based International Media Corporation:

"Reliable sources report that the United States is now <1994> actively participating in the arming and training of the Muslim forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina in direct contravention of the United Nations accords. US agencies have been providing weapons made in ... China (PRC), North Korea (DPRK) and Iran. The sources indicated that ... Iran, with the knowledge and agreement of the US Government, supplied the Bosnian forces with a large number of multiple rocket launchers and a large quantity of ammunition. These included 107mm and 122mm rockets from the PRC, and VBR-230 multiple rocket launchers ... made in Iran. ... It was reported that 400 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) arrived in Bosnia with a large supply of arms and ammunition. It was alleged that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had full knowledge of the operation and that the CIA believed that some of the 400 had been detached for future terrorist operations in Western Europe.

During September and October <1994>, there has been a stream of "Afghan" Mujahedin ... covertly landed in Ploce, Croatia (South-West of Mostar) from where they have traveled with false papers ... before deploying with the Bosnian Muslim forces in the Kupres, Zenica and Banja Luka areas. These forces have recently experienced a significant degree of military success. They have, according to sources in Sarajevo, been aided by the UNPROFOR Bangladesh battalion, which took over from a French battalion early in September <1994>.

[spanone]

16. Some threads are fun to hide.

[cobalt1999]

18. both should never have gotten involved.

Kosovo should have been handled by the Europeans. No need for the US to get involved.

Iraq should have been left alone, they were already neutralized, so no need for the US to get involved.

[BrentWill4U]

20. Your concerns are strategic..

I am concerned about the legality in this thread. ( And by the way, the Europeans tried to handle it and they failed miserable. I believe Clinton was right in what he did)

[MrSlayer]

19. No, Kosovo was not an illegal war for personal gain.

Kosovo was fought to stop genocide and we managed to win that one with no loss of American soldiers. Iraq is being fought so Chimp and his buddies can steal, plain and simple. It has cost us in soldiers, treasure and world opinion. We have unnecessarily killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people. Not at all the same thing.

[EFerrari]

21. Thank you. n/t

[BrentWill4U]

22. Okay, then this would follow..

Your argument is the cause that you are fighting for, not rather you have gotten permission from the UN, determines rather a war is legal or illegal. Who determines if the cause is just?

[MrSlayer]

31. The UN is not a factor for me in either case.

We're supposed to depend on our "leaders" to determine whether or not it's just. Unfortunately, so many of them have their fingers in the pie that they cannot be trusted. Particularly this regime that's in there now. So, I would leave it up to myself to determine until such time as we have people in Congress and the Executive branch who are at least somewhat honest about matters of war. You'll never get the truth from the crew in there now and that goes for both sides of the aisle. Very few in Congress voted against the fiasco we are involved in.

[Oilwellian]

68. That's not exactly true

2/3 of the Dems in Congress (both House & Senate) voted against going into Iraq.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

24. Your post is a great summation of what defines war crimes. n/t

MKJ

[Midlodemocrat]

91. Well said. I supported the war in Kosovo. I only wish we had

entered sooner when it became obvious about the genocide.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

23. Two alerts in one thread. Goodness me, the Big Dawg still haunts ya'll.

GHWB didn't do sh&* to stop the genocide in Kosovo...Clinton did and unfortunately for him, the senior bush left that a mess as well as Somalia.

I could go into the strategic approaches that ghwb could have taken at the beginning of the conflict which would have effectively isolated Milosivec and prevented the resulting "ethnic cleansing", however, it would be a complete waste of typing time.

MKJ

edited to add: I can't imagine any comparison between the two. Clinton and his friends didn't reap billions in profits from "fixed" (see Downing Street Memo)intelligence.

Clinton successfully brought to a conclusion the systematic extermination of one ethnic group by another.

:eyes:

[dogman]

26. Clinton was held accountable.

Snip>UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Chief U.N. war crimes tribunal prosecutor Carla Del Ponte told the Security Council on Friday there was no basis for opening an investigation into allegations of crimes by NATO during its bombing of Yugoslavia last year.

"Although some mistakes were made by NATO, I am very satisfied that there was no deliberate targeting of civilians or unlawful military targets by NATO during the bombing campaign,'' she said. She was referring to an 11-week NATO bombing campaign aimed at halting Yugoslav repression of the Albanian inhabitants of the Serb province of Kosovo. The bombing, which ended last June, was followed by the U.N.-endorsed entry into Kosovo of a NATO force and a U.N. administration.

Briefing an open meeting of the council, Del Ponte referred to a number of complaints, including from lawyers acting on behalf of Yugoslavia and a Russian parliamentary commission.

"I am now able to announce my conclusion: following a full consideration of my team's assessment of all complaints and allegations, that there is no basis for opening an investigating into any of those allegations or into other incidents related to the NATO bombing.''<snip

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

27. Nice. n/t

:toast: MKJ

[BrentWill4U]

29. That doesn't speak to rather or not..

the war itself was started lawfully. There was no UN resolution authority it and the fact that is the same fact many use to claim that the current war is illegal.

[dogman]

33. The UN has nothing to do with the question of legality.

The Kosovo action was undertaken through NATO action. The resolution for the Iraq War called on w to seek UN authorization. It is possible the UN prosecutor would find no grounds to prosecute him, but he will not recognize their authority to review his actions to see if they were legal.

[BrentWill4U]

41. Actually, not so..

The congress authorized him to go to war if, he determines that diplomatic efforts will be of no further use..

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

[dogman]

46. That would be looked at by Congress if they would do their job.

Whether he followed the authorization needs to be examined. Beyond that, however, is the question of how the war was prosecuted and even more relevant to war crimes is the occupation. Will w stand for a UN investigation?

[BrentWill4U]

47. No..

Nor would we in reality stand for an investigation of that type on any US President. We would use our veto to stop it, if it came down to that.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

51. I think many of us would stand for a US president being investigated.

A war crime is a war crime. Why should a US president be exempt? MKJ

[BrentWill4U]

53. They shouldn't

But I was speaking of reality for a second. I mean, lets be honest, if you think we are going to see international war crimes trials for any American we are diluting ourselves. I meant this thread to be more of an argument about ideas, not what is really going to happen.

[dogman]

52. As I have shown, Kosovo was reviewed by the UN.

They also sanctioned the occupation of Kosovo by Nato. I would expect crimes be investigated and prosecuted. Why would a US President be exempt? If our Congress would do it's duty, w would be removed from office prior to his trial at the Hague.

[BrentWill4U]

54. For the simple reason that it won't happen..

Not really a political possibility, IMHO

[dogman]

62. No kidding!

But what does that have to do with your original post. You tried the old "Clinton did it" BS and I pointed out the fact you are wrong. The UN absolved Clinton. Come back when you can show the same for w.

[BrentWill4U]

63. No, they said that US forces did not commit any war crimes..

They did not speak to the fact of whether or not the war was legal. The fact remains that the UN did not sanction the war and the argument that NATO did is BS. NATO is nothing but an alliance between member states for defense. If that is the standard, they why can't any group of states declare any war legal?

[dogman]

67. Any state can declare war.

The action in Kosovo was determined to be a just war. They can conduct trials of those guilty of war crimes when they can be brought to justice. The US forces are commanded by the Commander in Chief. We know that US forces have committed war crimes in Iraq, there are soldiers in federal prisons for that now. The question is at what level were these crimes condoned or covered up. There is also a question of whether or not international law was violated by the failure of the occupying forces in Iraq to provide for the security of the occupied country. Nato was absolved by the UN, read the finding of the UN prosecutor.

[davekriss]

90. The argument...

...weak, imo, was that NATO acted out of self-defense as the unrest in the area created sufficient threat for them to intervene. Article 51 of the UN Charter allows for action ahead of Security Council intervention (the right to self-defense), but only when a member nation is either directly attacked or is under imminent threat of attack. Regardless, after the act of self-defense, the member nation is to turn to the Security Council afterward.

In the case of Kosovo, there certainly was no "imminent threat", just the slippery slope of "sufficient threat" (and even that's questionable), the same slope Bush slides down in the National Security Strategy of the United States (published September 2002 -- there's a more recent version out on Whitehouse gov, but I have not read that one yet).

So on this line of argument, the aerial bombardment of Serbian positions in Kosovo was illegal (by the weight of our Constitution, we are bound by the treaties we sign, and therefore if not self-defense and without Security Council sanction, UN-member nations acted illegally).

There can, however, be mitigating circumstances. I can speed and run red lights -- break laws -- if in my back seat a lady is in labor and I'm trying to get to a hospital, no policeman would ticket me nor judge uphold the tickets. NATO entered an already existing war in which one side was purportedly committing genocide against the other.

Recall that Russia introduced a resolution to the Security Council condemning the NATO intervention as a flagrant violation of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. It failed 3-12, with only Russia, China, and Namibia voting for it. Yugoslavia and the Serbs attempted to bring war crimes cases to the Hague, but to no avail. It is partly because hegemonic power can do what it wills, but also because of these mitigating circumstances (acts of genocide) that there have been no consequences for the U.S. and NATO.

If, on the other hand, Kosovo and Serbia and the Albanians were at peace; if NATO invented out of whole cloth the "imminent threat" of WMD; if NATO tried to associate Milosevic with 9-11; if millions didn't march against the war on February 15 and other days -- then, and only then, would your suggestion of equivalency (Clinton vs. Bush) have weight. As it is, it's fallacious, Brent.

[dogman]

70. This is actually the basis for the charge of illegality.

The criteria for war were not met because the PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION was not made in good faith. Bushco actually removed the weapons inspection personnel to begin the war. That is why an investigation is needed to determine the actual facts.

[davekriss]

81. The IWR is America's shame

It is an embarrassment, replete with deception and lies, authored by a neo-fascist imperial regime that came to power via a bloodless coup, and with intent to implement the nightmare of PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses and more.

Can you define what the "threat" was in this statement, "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq"? Can you tell me what Iraq had to do with September 11? If nothing, then why is this clause in there: "consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001"?

At best we're looking at the most incompetent administration in U.S. history; worse, we're looking at a highly competent neo-fascist imperial regime uninterested in democracy, but instead amplifying the nightmare of U.S. foreign policy these last 58 years and as emobodied in these words of George Kennan:

The US has about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives.

We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease talks about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights and raising of living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.
---George Kennan, PPS 23, 1948

As the Republithug Regime has abandoned vast swathes of the U.S. population to their oppressed fates (as illustrated in the microcosm of Katrina), and as wealth continues to gush to the top (with the repeal of the estate tax the final icing on the cake), its important to remember who benefits from these arrangements. Not I. Not you. Not our sons and daughters dying in the hot sand deserts of Iraq. However, surely Lee Raymond, Sir John Browne, Riley P. Bechtel, the gang at Carlyle and Halliburton, and the rest of the Bush "base" are laughing all the way to the bank, these masters of blood and oil.

[dorktv]

44. Was Iraq under the jurisdiction of NATO?

[blonndee]

61. Sorry, but I have to ask you to please, PLEASE

use "whether" and not "rather." I can't take it anymore! :crazy:

[opiate69]

69. Christ on a crutch!

It's "whether", not "rather"..

[The Deacon]

32. Can You Say: "Straw Man"

You have, in several responses as well as the original post, said that people on this Board maintain that the invasion of Iraq is "illegal" because there was no UN resolution to go to war. So: name two.
What I see posted on here is the lack of a UN resolution being but one of many mis-steps by a untruthful & incompetent administration - one which tried to lead the world to believe they were seeking a UN resolution. But, then wait, they didn't need one after all (when it became obvious no one was buying Colin Powell's song-and-dance up in New York.)
So, again, name two people on this Board who said what you claimed - otherwise this is just some freeper flamebait, as I suspected all along.

[Dinger]

64. There Seems To Be A Correlation Between Certain Kinds Of Posts, And

a relatively low post count. You don't have to believe me. Just check it out.

Edited to add, "and an occasional disabled profile, until they are called on it that is.

[Jacobin]

88. Trying to compare IraqNam to Kosovo?

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:


oh my gawd.

These people are FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pinto]

35. No.

[stepnw1f]

38. Too Bad.... Georgie Committed War Crimes for Profit

Clinton didn't.... just got a blow job.

[sandnsea]

45. Three key differences

The UN had been involved in various peacekeeping missions involving Milosevic. The Serbs were involved in ongoing ethnic cleansing. NATO approved the action, including Russia. Completely different than Iraq. Clinton never lied about his reasons for war.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

49. sandnsea, I always appreciate your posts. BTW, the OP is a fan

of Pat Buchanan.(search is your friend)

'Nuff said. MKJ

:yourock:

[BrentWill4U]

56. I am not a "fan" of his..

I posted an article he wrote because it was a good argument about on the Israeli-Lebanon argument concerning why and How Israel has gone too far. However, as far as his other argument, I am no fan. However, i will never discount a logical argument because of who brings it.

[AnnieBW]

50. No.

1) The Serbians and Bosnian Serbs were clearly the aggressors by preventing the Bosnians from seceding.

2) There was massive ethnic cleansing on all sides, but mainly the Serbs agains the Bosnians.

3) There was clearly a UN mandate as well as a NATO mandate before we went in. In fact, UN Peacekeepers sat by and watched ethnic cleansing happening in Srebrenica, but did NOTHING to stop it.

4) We had the support of many other countries, including Moslem countries.

5) Although there were a lot of mistakes (Chinese Embassy, anyone?) they did their best to limit civilian casualties.

6) We were also brokering the peace settlement at the same time.

7) War crimes are for deliberate, pre-meditated acts of slaughtering civilians. "Collateral damage" is considered a tragedy, but not a crime.

BTW, if you think the Bosnian action was so bad, remember that we lost NO American lives during it.

[SensibleAmerican]

60. There was no UN mandate

n/t

[BrentWill4U]

65. Read the thread..

I think Clinton did the right thing and Bush has done the wrong thing. I simply disagree with others that this war is illegal. Is it stupid and unneeded? No question. However, it is not illegal.

[SensibleAmerican]

55. Yes, because neither of them are going to be punished

Anyone that believes otherwise is delusional.

[ComerPerro]

71. You aren't the first Republican stooge to try and point this out, you know

[Bridget Burke]

72. No.

Bush started a war. Clinton helped to end one.

Try another one....

[sendero]

74. I love some of the ..

... strained analogies that are popping up here lately.


Iraq and Kosovo have about..... zero in common.

[CJCRANE]

75. The war in Iraq was based on a false prospectus -

WMD.

The Kosovo intervention was to stop ethnic cleansing, which was truly happening.

[zanne]

76. Alot of disruptors lately...

Their desperation is growing.

[Dinger]

85. I've Noticed That Too

And you're absolutely right, their desperation is growing, and so are their numbers on this board.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NoPasaran]

78. Is Bush being punished for invading Iraq?

I must have missed that!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

79. Well, given that that punishment is "nothing", I think the answer is yes.

The reason Iraq was a mistake was not that it was illegal, but that it lead to vast ammounts of needless suffering. The same argument does not apply to Kosovo.

International law has fewer teeth than an ostrich with a sugar habit and a trigger-happy dentist. Discussing whether or not Bush should be tried for war crimes is less worthwhile than discussing arranging to have him struck by a meteorite.

The invasion of Iraq was both illegal and immoral. Those two facts are not, however, strongly related, and will not be unless and until a) the UN has the power to enforce its decisions, and b) the balance of power is strongly held by countries that support human rights to at least a moderate extent (cue howls from the perspectivless of "America doesn't", but there are many more countries out there with worse than with better attitudes to them than America).

[cigsandcoffee]

82. Ridiculous. n/t

[mmonk]

84. I don't know technically legal positions

concerning Kosovo. All I know is there was a conflict going on there. In Iraq, just naked aggression and conquest on deliberate lies. Probably the end of any order in the world for awhile concerning peace and stability as the US has tacitly shown international law and international co-operation mean nothing if no one can stop another from just invading a country and starting a war. The US is at best amoral and alot of the time immoral now. The US is hollow and without honor now.

[mtnsnake]

87. Should Davy Crockett face the same punishment as Charles Manson? nt

[Bridget Burke]

92. Davy Crockett was punished more harshly than Charles Manson.

He died at the Alamo & Manson was sent to prison. Crockett may have tried to surrender & not gone down swinging Ol' Betsy--but that account still says he died bravely.