[extropy-chat] what can you show us?

[Robert Lindauer]

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.

>  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
>  
>