[extropy-chat] what can you show us?

[c c]

Yes, there were certainly options other than the war,
on humanitarian grounds, but no better way to scatter
the Iraq regime. That line in court, along with no
evidence of deliberate malice beforehand in killing
civilians, would be enough to acquit the
administration.



> Impeachment, not war crimes. There is a very
> different standard of law 
> well established here.
> 
> >  Since technically Iraq was in violation
> >of agreements made previously with the UN, it would
> >have to be shown America invaded to entirely
> subjugate
> >Iraq and commit war crimes.
> >
> 
> It hasn't been determined by the UN security council
> that Iraq was 
> definitively in violation. In fact, we invaded over
> the objections of 
> the security council and the UN weapons inspectors.
> It turns out they 
> were right and we were lying, apparently
> intentionally.
> 
> > If you look backwards to
> >2003 so you can say, "now that we know America
> >couldn't win the peace, then overthrowing the
> Baathist
> >regime was futile, and the administration had to
> know
> >a sustained resistance to occupation was inevitable
> &
> >unbeatable", that is to say you are attempting to
> >prove the course of the war was inevitable and
> America
> >knew so in advance. If you can demonstrate this you
> >have a solid case.
> >  
> >
> 
> No, I'm claiming it was obvious then as now that war
> is bad and that 
> there were other options and that the American
> Presidential group 
> decided to go to war over the objections of the CIA,
> the UN and many, 
> many, many citizens apparently on trumped up
> "evidence" of Iraq's 
> capability of delivering weapons of mass destruction
> (such as having 
> rockets or nuclear or biological or chemical weapons
> ability). As a 
> result, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's died
> (baathists and 
> non-bathists INDISCRIMINATELY) and more than a few
> thousand americans 
> have been killed or maimed. That there were other
> options was obvious 
> and continues to be obvious. That this was a bad
> choice was obvious then 
> and continues to be obvious now.
> 
> This point was made at length, even in this forum,
> BEFORE the war 
> attempt. It was made strongly in the UN, strongly by
> military advisors 
> to Bush who were subsequently fired, and strongly by
> American 
> Intelligence agents who were subsequently illegally
> "outed" by someone 
> in the White House apparently as retalliation.
> 
> How is any of this controversial in the slightest?
> 
> Robbie
> 
> >
> >--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>What evidence of wrongness are you looking for
> other
> >>than piles of dead 
> >>bodies?  Why aren't they sufficient?
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >        
>
>____________________________________________________
> >Sell on Yahoo! Auctions – no fees. Bid on great
> items.  
> >http://auctions.yahoo.com/
> >_______________________________________________
> >extropy-chat mailing list
> >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >  
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions – no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/