I'll trump you with one point: In 1957, a little organization called the United Nations defined justifiable actions of defense. The definitions were largely written by the United States, but agreed to by all charter members. Pre-emptive defense was specifically defined as an act of aggression, not defense, and was categorically denied justification. We spent decades holding other nations to this standard. Until we broke it.
There goes another one! rocketbc, are you gonna get off your ass and help invade Austria or not? I don't need to post a pic; the onus, apparently, is on the disprover.
Wouldn't going after the Al-Queda terrorists make more sense than going after the person who may or may not have helped them?
Saddam funded AQ? Saddam funded their training facilities? Completely wrong, according to every source I;ve heard. Any prrof or are we back to flying Austrian pigs with mooncheese bombs?
You obvioulsy didn't read any of those links then. Typical. Just like you never responded in the Jesus thread. I'll get the quote that trumps your trump then: From George Weigel's 3 Questions essay- Does the moral authority to wage a just war rest with the United Nations alone? The U.N. charter itself recognizes a right to national self-defense, which implies that defense against aggression does not require authorization by the Security Council; it is an inalienable right of nations. If the use of military force can help advance the cause of world order, it certainly helps at the prudential political level if the use of force is approved by the Security Council. But a correct reading of the just-war tradition does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that prior Security Council approval is morally imperative. Some responsible analysts have raised questions of precedent here, too: would a failure to obtain prior Security Council approval for a U.S. or coalition assault to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction mean that the "law of the strongest" was replacing international law? I don’t think so. It would mean that the United States and allied countries, having made clear that they intend their action to advance the cause of world order to which the U.N. is dedicated, have decided that they have a moral obligation to take measures that the U.N., as presently configured, finds it impossible to take – even though those measures arguably advance the Charter's goals. And that, it seems to me, promotes the cause of the peace of world order over the long haul.
What were your sources? The MoveOn.org weekly newsletter? *The guy who beheaded Nicholas Berg, Al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, took refuge and received medical treatment in Saddam’s Iraq and trained al-Qaeda warriors at Iraq’s Ansar al-Islam terrorist training base after being wounded in battles against the Taliban. *A 16-page government memo provides convincing proof of the connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp *The al-Qaeda affiliate terrorist group Ansar al-Islam trained its terrorists in northern Iraq for years, even before Zarqawi arrived. *A Saddam insider has testified that Saddam’s secret police, the Mukhabarat, provided weapons and funds to Ansar.
All of the Berg stuff and the Ansar Al-Islam stuff happened in the area of Iraq that SADDAM HAD NO CONTROL over. That area was run by the Kurds.
Moveon? No, try the CIA, DIA, etc. Your sources boil down to Chalabi's dog and pony show. In case you hadn't heard, it ain't cool to cite Iranian supplied disinformation. This has been discussed extensively in the news and on this message board for the past 6 months so I'm not going to bother to rehash it.
... er... because I get all my news from a martial arts website... yeah, that's a good one. Wow... I've been served. (hangs head in shame)
"The U.N. charter itself recognizes a right to national self-defense, which implies that defense against aggression does not require authorization by the Security Council; it is an inalienable right of nations." Do you or do you not see the slight problem here? "Some responsible analysts have raised questions of precedent here, too: would a failure to obtain prior Security Council approval for a U.S. or coalition assault to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction mean that the "law of the strongest" was replacing international law? I don’t think so. It would mean that the United States and allied countries, having made clear that they intend their action to advance the cause of world order to which the U.N. is dedicated, have decided that they have a moral obligation to take measures that the U.N., as presently configured, finds it impossible to take – even though those measures arguably advance the Charter's goals." This assumes a reality not in existence. IF you assume reality, ie real threat or aggression, then a nation has a right to defend itself. But you do not, repeat NOT allow simultaneously the right to determine who is a threat AND the right to act on it in advance. Your point does not address mine. Typical.
I wish JFK was alive today. That's a Democrat I would vote for. Gore has turned into a militant vengeful psycho. Bush in a landlside.
Only if you overlook all the officials who PRIOR TO THE WAR were saying we were ignoring genuine intel and only looking ofr intel that supported our position. Or the fact that Bush himself admitted to Woodward that the Iraq ambition pre-dated 9-11. Or the fact that the NIE report said no threat, WMD or not. Or....etc. etc. If you look at the world or the administration through rose coloured glasses, don't be surprised when everything comes up roses.
Zhooom! There went another one. The interesting thing isn't that this fellow believes this. It's that many, many Americans do, despite admissions from the CIA, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. etc. to the contrary.
