[extropy-chat] what can you show us?

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:

> beb_cc at yahoo.com wrote:
> 
> >Being there is no clear international law isn't proof
> >of undeniably malicious intent needed in the case of
> >war crimes?
> >
> 
> Impeachment, not war crimes. There is a very different standard of
> law well established here.

Yes, and you apparently don't know anything about it either.

> 
> >  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. 

This is a lie. The UN clearly stated several times in resolutions that
Iraq was in violation and made demands which the UN itself refused to
enforce, primarily because the UN had been corrupted by Saddam's
bribery as is now coming to light. Several countries, including France,
Germany, and Russia, were explicitly paid off by Saddam, while quite a
number of high UN officials were similarly bribed. A refusal to enforce
the law because you've been bribed does not equal a claim that no law
was broken.

You are suffering from a number of logical faults.


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com