Pinky on the Iraq War’s Legality. Or Lack Thereof. Mostly Lack Thereof.
As long as I’m annoying Janus with pinkyshow items, here’s another one that I really like.
As long as I’m annoying Janus with pinkyshow items, here’s another one that I really like.
This entry was posted by jbc on Saturday, September 15th, 2007 at 12:01 am and is filed under george_w_bush, the_law, the_world, war. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
lies.com is proudly powered by
WordPress
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
Disclaimer: See domain name.
September 15th, 2007 at 11:05 am
That was not simple enough for the rwnj’s who comment here to understand.
Also, it was waaay beyond their attention span.
It is sad that as Pinky says, the only people able to enforce International Law when violated by the US government are the American people – sad because most Americans are either Rethuglicans or ignorant of the principles set out in Pinky’s simple slide show.
September 15th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
boy you got that right, I made it about a minute and a half, then realized ther was a half hour left, that was just way too annoying.
September 15th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Ok, I watched a little more, I didn’t figure it would take long to find a whole in the pussy (cat)’s logic, it didn’t. A few minutes into it the pussy (cat) says that the US said Sadam had weapons of mass destruction, Bush said the UN among others said he had WMD’s in the form of poison gas, he also said we needed to stop Sadam BEFORE he acquired nuclear weapons not that he HAD them, again based on intelligence of most of world’s agencies. And then the self defense thing, what is self defense, I think that includes preemptive actions, you guys obviously don’t. If you know where the rapist lives and you know he is home, do you arrest him or do you wait until you catch him in the act? I figured that was enough for me, I’m pretty sure a video with that pussy (cat) is banned under the Geneva conventions as a method of torture, I would take water boarding over watching a half hour of that.
September 15th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
That was compelling evidence shcb has the attention span of a gnat and proof positive of his complete inability to comprehend political science except in analogies so simplistic as to be utterly irrelevant.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:15 am
Guilty as charged.
Not really, I think I am above average in my understanding of politics. It just proves I have a pain threshold.
October 4th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Related, may be of interest to some:
Also,
www3.brookings.edu/fp/research/singer200709.pdf
November 8th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I know that I’m late to this one — by about a month…but I really find your logic interesting here.
I’ll preface this with the fact I’m no more with these guys as I am with you in my opinions/principles as a whole. I really think that you some of your points on lies (amongst some very emotional opposition) are quite valid. However, I am very wary of pre-emptive action — further I think that your rapist analogy illustrates exactly where our opinions diverge on this.
If we know someone is likely to become a rapist, I agree that action is warranted — but nobody should be prosecuted for something that we think they will do. If a person has not raped anyone, and has not otherwise committed a crime (such as conspiracy to commit rape), they should not be liable for prosecution. It seems like we’re getting into the area of thought crime, which I feel is a very dangerous precedent. Perhaps my feelings on thought crimes strays from the greater issue of pre-emptive war.
In any case, I do not think that the invasion of Iraq violated international law. I don’t agree with Pinky that UN law supersedes US law, particularly when it comes to domestic policy (which I know wasn’t the issue, but it demonstrates where I think that we definitely need to diverge from UN policy). I think that the US is a unique country with ideals which (for better or for worse) are different from the world at large, and or foreign policy needs to be our own. In short, we need to keep a lookout for our own interests, and maybe not be so quick to trust the rest of the world. I’m not sure that the UN is doing a particularly great job of keeping the peace (and no, the US isn’t helping either).
Admittedly my grasp on international law is probably pretty weak. However, my understanding is that the Iraq war can be legally justified by the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire. The terms were specific about things like the no-fly zone (which was repeatedly violated, I believe) as well as the UN inspections. After the US used those inspections for clandestine activity, Saddam Hussein disallowed them for a period. Further, I don’t think that there was ever a feeling that Hussein participated within the spirit of the cease-fire (e.g. the inspections were not credible, as they were all announced with sufficient time for Saddam Hussein to cover any WMD research/production, had it actually existed).
I believe that the invasion itself was technically legal — particularly since the UN resolutions clearly didn’t have sufficient teeth for Saddam Hussein to comply with the terms of the cease-fire. That being said, for ethical reasons, I never supported the US invasion of Iraq. I really felt that the Bush administration used fearmongering during a time when Americans were more likely to buy into it. The Bush administration took advantage of us all when we were weak so they could push an indirectly related agenda with dangerous ideals…that they were unable or unwilling to even try to be honest about. I’m not accusing anyone of war crimes or lying here (with a nod to your previous argument about the semantics of the word ‘lie’) — but I think that quite a few people were very dishonest about their intentions and reasons.
With regard to the war being illegal, I just don’t see it (the invasion alone, not the legal mealy-mouthing about enemy combatants, the lack of habeus corpus, torture, violation of FISA laws, etc). I absolutely agree that the people involved with this should be held accountable from the top down…even if only by the voters. In my opinion, the Republican party will suffer for this for years to come. I expect Republican candidates to distance themselves from Bush even more than Democratic candidates did from Clinton in the upcoming elections, and I don’t know if that will be enough. I also hope that Democrats who voted to authorize Bush to use military force (like Hillary Clinton) are held accountable for their part in this.