Guardian: Revealed: the rush to war

(mods: since this is the front page story in the Guardian, and has new details of the legal advice the UK government got, I think this is LBN, but I'm happy for it to be moved to Editorials if you think that's better)

And Blair can 'prove it' because he had some guys at the BBC fired for suggesting there was an unnecessary rush to war.

an immediate threat. There was no avoiding this ill-begotten illegal massacre, it was in the works years prior.

It's just an economic grab to control their economy before France, Russia, Germany or others had the biggest piece of the pie... that's all it ever was about, had nothing to do with terrorism, nothing to do with democracy, these are just window dressings to legitimize and obscene and immoral attack on a sovereign nation who was dumb enough to do bidness with prior administrations as an ally... I guess this will teach other nations to do bidness with the devil.

Count One: Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War
This count helped address the crimes committed before the war began, showing a plan to commit crimes during the war.

Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace"
Including “the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.”

Count Three: War Crimes
These were the more “traditional” violations of the law of war including treatment of prisoners of war, slave labor, and use of outlaws weapons.

Count Four: Crimes Against Humanity
This count involved the actions in concentration camps and other death rampages.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergIndictments.html

God have mercy on the USA when the reckoning comes. We are so fucked it is unreal. The world has the right to hang us all.

and immoral, and unethical, and just plain stupid . . . as is the current occupation, btw . . . what remains to be seen is whether any of the guilty parties will ever be called to account for their actions and punished accordingly . . . I doubt it . . .

You assist in attacking a nation that has not threatened you over weapons it was found not to have. Seems like an unjust war to me.

may haul their asses over there...

the U.S. has not.

According to Intl. Law the Iraq invasion was illegal, thereby making the Occupation illegal, as well. Of course, nothing will be done about it.

By Jason Beattie Political Correspondent, Evening Standard
23 February 2005

Tony Blair was hit by fresh allegations today that Downing Street manipulated the legal advice in order "to rush" Britain into the Iraq war.

A new book claims the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith warned less than two weeks before the invasion that military action could be illegal.

It says Lord Goldsmith never wrote an unequivocal legal opinion saying the war was lawful. It alleges the crucial Parliamentary answer eventually setting out the legal justification for the invasion was drawn up not by the Attorney General's chambers, but in Downing Street.
The disclosures are contained in the book Lawless World by Phillipe Sands, a QC in Cherie Booth's Matrix chambers and a professor of international law at University College, London.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/16807947?source=Evening%20Standard

DUH!