Hmm: War in Iraq is illegal but justified - WTF!

[Ugnmoose]

A bit of a rant here, but I just don't get it. Richard Perle last week in Great Britain comes right out and astounds the world with a comment that he knows the war in Iraq was a violation of International Law, but that aside, the U.S. was justified in its preemptive actions.

So I guess what he is saying to the rest of the world is that the U.S. is not governed in any way shape or form by International Law. This is a truly incredible message. Not only is it the height of arrogance, it begs other nations to take military reprisals without fear of legal consequences. It makes a total shambles of the United Nations and of almost 60 years of global dimplomacy designed to prevent just the type of chaos we have now created in Iraq and Afganistan.

Of course this brilliant utterance by one of the preeminent neocons got virtually no press here in the States, but was widely reported overseas. Is it no wonder that foreigners despise this Administration and everything it stands for. Yet for many American's ignorance is bliss.

[bpilgrim]

1. they are continuing their promotion of PREVENTIVE WAR - n/t

peace

[redqueen]

2. Yup

The PNACers were on the Diane Rehm show this morning defending their views.

So lovely of Diane & staff to ensure that no one with a serious question got through to ask it.

[no name no slogan]

3. It's sad but in a way

it's kind of GOOD news, IMHO.

At least now we finally have an administration that ADMITS that it violates international law whenever it feels "justified". Compare this to past presidents who have unleashed "pre-emptive" or "justified" attacks or subversions against other nations that were deemed a threat-- and I'm not just talking about the DEMOCRATS, either, as the also have some blood on their hands, too (Kennedy & Johnson in Vietnam, Clinton attacking Sudan, etc.).

The only difference I can see truthfully is in the cavalier attitude of ShrubCo., and their ability to admit that the US will act like an imperial power whenever it damn well pleases.

But you are correct that the US media has much bigger things to concern itself with-- like whether a rich, has-been 80s pop star is a child molester or not. :eyes:

[Malva Zebrina]

4. They have reversed everything we have ever known about morality

and have done so successfully. Why? What has happened to the people in this country? Obesity? That is as much a factor as any because I simply cannot believe that the people have become so cruel and mean faced in three short years under the leadership of this ignorant, stupid little coward of a man.

What ridiculous reasons can be found for this barbarism and the support of the same from the population? It would seem that most Americans have surrendered their sense of morality in favor of the thrill of joyfully killing off innocent civilians, children included, by the thousands, based all on a lie from their, talking to god, getting messges from god, leader. Hallelujah!!

[tinnypriv]

5. This was done in 1998

When Clinton bombed Iraq right at the time the Security Council was set to meet on the topic.

And that wasn't the first time either.

First time it was expressed with Bush in force-based actions was the bombing of Afghanistan, where the US did not even attempt to get a UN-SC resolution authorising the attack. The reason being that would indicate that the US has some obligation to defer to an implicitly higher authority.

The US does not recognise that such an authority exists, nor has it ever.

Every other country would do the same if it could get anyway with it, but they don't have the guns.

[BenZodiac]

6. .....

"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing," said Perle in London in comments published by the British media on Thursday. "International law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone."