President Bush said today that: "War was a justifiable tool to ward off aggression and that the United Nations must be willing to enforce its demands to remain relevant." http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3852116Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, U.S. Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials in regard to the Nuremberg War Trials," August 12, 1945, said:
"...we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy." Are Iraqis justified in their resistance to our aggression?
Are any of the other target nations justified in their defense against future U.S. aggression outside of U.N. Security Council approval?
How can there be any true soverignty with a U.S. installed government there? Won't any action taken by the U.N. in favor of the U.S. backed council there be seen as an approval of the war?
U.S., Britain Plan U.N. Resolution on Iraq Future
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3853083
"The United States and Britain plan a new U.N. resolution this month backing decisions by Iraqi leaders and the Bush administration to accelerate the route toward Iraqi sovereignty, diplomats said on Wednesday."(Another) War in Defense of a Monarchy?"Former CIA director James Woolsey and Princeton scholar Bernard Lewis penned an opinion article last week in The Wall Street Journal calling for the temporary re-adoption of the 1925 Iraqi constitution until a permanent constitution can be written.
The article proposed the reinstatement, with some amendments and on an interim basis, of a constitutional monarchy in which there would be an elected parliament and a king would appoint the prime minister."http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.11.07/news3b.woolseyside.html