What do you call a nation who INVADES an INNOCENT NATION?

An innocent nation that had not been doing anything to anyone.

What do you call a nation who INVADES that innocent nation? What do you call a nation who OCCUPIES that innocent nation? What do you call a nation who commits GENOCIDE against the people of that innocent nation?

Answer; America.

We are the nazis now.

Resistance and start sharing information on how to stop the bush/PNAC Nazis.

Our problem is shared and not contained here.

they are doing.

Remember, Bush & Co. are themselves terrorists, and have got a whole lot of Americans terrorized into submission. We have to be VERY careful about when, where, and how we speak out. The FBI comes knocking........you can find yourself personally ruined. I myself am single, self-supporting, and own a business. They wouldn't have to jail me for long to wipe out everything I have worked decades for.

Gee. Do you think they'll still be in favor of capital punishment?

Iraq & the Nuremberg Precedent

By Peter Dyer
March 16, 2006
ConsortiumNews.com

EXCERPT...

Just over six decades ago, the first Nuremberg Trial began. On Nov. 21, 1945, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson opened the prosecution of 21 Germans for initiating a war of aggression and for the crimes which flowed from this act. Now is a good time to reconsider some of the history and issues involved in this momentous trial in the light of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

After Nazi Germany had been defeated, the major victorious allies (the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and France) drew up a Charter establishing an International Military Tribunal as the legal basis for prosecution for three distinct categories of crimes: crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

SNIP...

Invoking the precedent set by the United States and its allies at the Nuremberg trial in 1946, there can be no doubt that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war of aggression. There was no imminent threat to U.S. security nor to the security of the world. The invasion violated the U.N. Charter as well as U.N. Security Council Resolution #1441.

The Nuremberg precedent calls for no less than the arrest and prosecution of those individuals responsible for the invasion of Iraq, beginning with President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

CONTINUED...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/031506a.html

for having failed, as a Country, as Citizens. No one ever said that democracy was a "let george do it" operation. We have a responsibility as Citizens to see to the education of our future leaders (ALL of them). We have let the government get away from us the people.

WE are supposed to run the Government. This whole experiment only works if we take the wheel.

I really appreciate taking responsibility for what our government does in our name. It forces on us a dedication to change it, and not be satisfied to merely blame Bush and expect him to right things. It's up to us. Good call, annabanana.

Those of us who have been against him and have done everything we can to fight against his policies and his so-called presidency are no more responsible for bush's violence than my seven year old son.

when did we stop being responsible for our own government?

I fight every day BECAUSE I understand my responsibility to stop Bush and his lackeys.

I think you are confusing blame with responsibility.

oh, boy :eyes:

Those of us who have fought and continue the fight against this regime are not responsible nor have blame for what this regime does.

I will not take responsibility or the blame because it wasn't me who voted for him and it wasn't me who installed him in the WH.

for non-payment of taxes. Until you and I do that, we are all responsible.

If you subscribe to the concept of a government of the people, by the people and for the people..Then it is our government, whether we like it or not. This is why an honest voting apparatus is the single most vital component in our country. I believe that the American people, in the whole, are good, honest, and generous people. If the voting results were honest reflections of the will of the people, we would see this clearly in our elected representatives.

Everything flows from this. If you understand the mechanics of our government, as they were written, you will see that, good or bad.... the ultimate responsibility belongs to each and every one of us.

confusing blame with responsibility.

I think all of America's citizens should feel some responsibility for the actions of our government. We have a responsibility to actively participate in every instigation of democracy that confronts us. In those efforts we certainly cast off any blame for wrongful actions of our government. But, I also feel that if we neglect our responsibility to challenge the government on actions we disagree with then we do start taking on some of the blame.

I think that it's not a heresy to take on as much of the burden of Bush's bloody wars as one can afford. I think you have a perfect right to feel any way you wish, and I don't think you should be ridiculed :eyes: or criticised. We all contribute when we involve ourselves in working to end Bush's wars. It doesn't matter much how we participate. Every little bit helps, I think.

and never will.

I do understand that we as citizens have a responsibility to stop bush and his cabal. I agree with that.

I don't believe it makes us responsible for their actions.

Whether anyone is MIHOP or LIHOP, bush took full advantage with the patriot act, starting a war, illegal wiretapping and so on. Those that stood silent, voted for him and supported him have the responsibility and the blame. Those elected officials who didn't even bother reading the fine print and rubber stamped whatever bush wanted also have it.

Those of us that have fought tooth and nail, screamed our heads off about what was happening and is happening to our country has one responsibility when it comes to bush and his minions: To stop these people.

I do understand those who feel differently than I and it is a reasonable argument. It's just not one I can subscribe to.

It's one of those personal things. Not a campaign. Just my own view.

They're the ones who can and, I hope, will investigate the motives and the criminality of this evil and premeditated pillage of a sovereign nation. The lies, the intimidation and the subsequent destruction of Iraq is a crime on so many levels...from human rights to international law to profiteering and more. And it's the only place where an open and fair hearing can be done.

Sadly, you could have used that same question about this nation's conquest of the Native Americans and all the things that happened to them.

America has never been innocent. For a "peaceful" nation, we sure seem to get into a lot of armed conflicts. For a nation that is civil, we sure encourage some of the most arrogant and boorish behavior. The "innocent" is just the blinder that the corporate media and society placed over your eyes that reality has knocked off.

Cheers...

The Iraqi government was anything but innocent, and there's a big difference between not doing anything to anyone and not doing anything to anyone but your own subjects.

And America's actions in Iraq are nothing whatsoever to do with genocide.

The reason the invasion of Iraq was a mistake was that while it was easy to remove the fairly horrific regime there was no possibility of putting a decent onein place afterwards, and so nothing was gained. If there had been, I at least would have supported it.

And while all nazi governments are bad, only a fraction of bad governments are nazis. The current American government has very little in common with them.

Ever heard of Geneva Conventions, sovereign nation, sanctions?

I'm tucking that one away for future use. :toast:

Some day maybe even as much as half the population of America may actually learn those facts.

Not holding my breath though.

three fucking years later and most meriKans have no clue about Pipes/PNAC/OSP/WHIG and the plan to invade Iraq no matter what. Pat Roberts has seen to that.

My understanding is that the Geneva conventions deal with methods of fighting a war (I may well be wrong on that one, but if the convention forbids invading sovereign, non-agressive nations who are model neighbours on the grounds that their governments are mistreating their own citizens then I'm afraid I diagree with that provision of it, at least). America broke it repeatedly during the Iraq war, but there was no reason I now of (my knowledge of the convention is limited in the extreme) why it couldn't have fought that or any other war without doing so.

I specifically don't agree with the principle of national sovereignty, except where exercised by democracies. A dictator has no more right to rule his country than anyone else does.

The sanctions on Iraq were achieving nothing except causing vast ammounts of suffering. I think that they should have been massively reduced. There is no point in trying to make a dictator do something by making his people suffer unless he cares about his people's suffering.

Fact is, regime change is illegal, your personal beliefs not withstanding.

Have a nice day! :hi:

285,000+ DEAD. That is GENOCIDE.

It absolutely is genocide.

How many Americans are aware of the US-sponsored terrorist deaths of 30,000 Nicaraguan citizens? How many are aware of the fact the World Court found the US guilty in those deaths and ordered the US to pay restitution? How many are aware of the fact the US agreed to pay, did so for a short time, then made a trade deal with Nicaragua in lieu of flat payments, that after Nicaragua agreed to the trade deal the US then froze the deal...as it sits frozen to this day.

Genocide.

While most Americans are totally ignorant of what has been & is being done in their name, the rest of the world is not.

The goal was to put on a show and make the world cower at our feet. Just read the writings from the PNAC people and CFR types like Zbig.

However, if there had been, and if that goal had been achievable, I would have supported the invasion of Iraq.

or the US Constitution. You do support the neocon agenda.

That's unfortunate.

I would support the principal of having decent international laws and an authority with sufficient teeth to enforce them, but at present many international laws are more honoured in the breech than the observance. The most high-profile recent breech, the American invasion of Iraq, was clearly wrong, but it wasn't the fact that it was illegal that made it wrong. The bombing of Kosovo, which prevented mass ethnic cleansing, was also illegal, and I think clearly not wrong.

I have in common with the neocons the fact that we both support military intervention in third world countries by first world ones, in defiance of international law. Where we differ is that they think that America should intervene for selfish reasons, and I think that all first world countries should intervene for altruistic ones.

As to the American constitution, I think it has a lot to be said for it but is far from unflawed. I'm not sure which bits I'm opposing in this case, and as I'm not an American I'm not unduly worried about doing so.

"and I think that all first world countries should intervene for altruistic ones."

Surely you jest...

Surely you jest.

Mass murder, arguably, although mass manslaughter through negligence is probably closer, but not genocide.

Genocide is a word with a very specific meaning: it means "attempting to wipe out an entire ethnic or cultural group". America has clearly not been doing that.

Killing the last remaining 500 members of a particular tribe is genocide. Killing tens of millions people without wiping out or trying to wipe out any demographic groupings isn't.

Words have meanings. Simply picking a word for a Very Bad Thing and applying it to the war in Iraq to convince people that the war in Iraq is a Very Bad Thing is sloppy arguing in the extreme.

shock and awe was all about destroying whatver was left of the infrastructure of iraq after 10 years of debilitationg sanctions that resulting in nothing but death.

Hide your head in the sand but actions speak louder than words.

It may be "as bad as genocide". It may be "morally equivalent to genocide". But it's not genocide.

Genocide is a word with a specific meaning; it doesn't mean anything else. Wiping out the infrastructure of a country is no more genocide than it is ocelot or measuring or dispeptic.

genocide - the systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. (Webster's)

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a fucking duck.
I guess we just randomly bombed and invaded rather than systematically eh? :eyes:

Since the BBC has it listed at about 36,000. But even if the BBC is off by a factor of 8 or so, and it really is 285,000, it still does not fit the definition of genocide.

But don't let that stop you - rock on!! I do find your rants entertaining.

link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4525412.stm

But hey, don't let the fact that John Hopkins did the study stop you!

:eyes:

and failed to come up with the same definition as yours. Could you provide the link, please?

“Please understand how extremely conservative we were: we did a survey estimating that 285,000 people have died due to the first 18 months of invasion and occupation and we reported it as at least 100,000.”

- Roberts, Johns Hopkins


"There are now at least 8 independent estimates of the number or rate of deaths induced by the invasion of Iraq. The source most favored by the war proponents (Iraqbodycount.org) is the lowest. Our estimate is the third from highest. Four of the estimates place the death toll above 100,000."

- Roberts, Johns Hopkins

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/8464

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2006/davies0206.html

http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2005-09/27edwards.cfm

As for your comment re JH "definition of genocide" being "same as yours", nice strawman! You sure are trying hard! I said 285,000 DEAD. In my books that is genocide. NOWHERE have I said anything whatsoever about any definition of genocide, John Hopkins or otherwise.

Keep trying though, I'm sure you can convince someone that bush's illegal war of aggression against Iraq was actually legal. Well, not anyone who actually bothers to read up on facts, but still, lotsa Americans around who don't bother doing that. ;)

Fact.

The reason the INVASION of Iraq was a mistake is because it was ILLEGAL, unjust, immoral.

So YOU would support illegal regime change. Thus you do not support international law or the US Constitution and in fact have the same opinion as the neocons; America decides who is "decent" and who can be other nations' governments. We don't like other nations' governments, we just ignore laws and Treaties and the USC and illegally regime change.

No thanks.

it may not have risen to the level of invadable offense from the US side, but the Government of Saddam Hussein was most certainly not innocent or any wrong doing. It was a state that supported terrorism (just not the terrorists we claimed it supported.) It was a state engaged in systematic warfare against an internal population. it was hardly Costa Rica.

two truths. One: there is no relavent international law. And the closest laws to relevance don't oppose the invasion of Iraq.
Two: the invasion of Iraq was not unconstitutional. The United States Congress gave the President and Commander in Chief the legal authority to wage war, as required in every reading of the Constitution I've ever seen.

but I guess you have better information. I'm willing to be informed. Please cite the international laws (chapter and verse, please) that were broken.

innocent of any wrong-doing. FACT.

1. The invasion of Iraq was ILLEGAL under international law and that is a FACT.

2. Only self-defense is a legal reason to wage war. FACT.

3. Yes I obviously do have better information than you.

Here you go, chapter & verse. Congrats on deciding to get informed;

The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule:

-when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm

-when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm

Under Article 51, the triggering condition for the exercise of self-defense is the occurrence of an armed attack ("if an armed attack occurs"). Notwithstanding the literal meaning of that language, some, though not all, authorities interpret Article 51 to permit anticipatory self-defense in response to an imminent attack. The application of the basic law regarding self-defense to the present U.S. confrontation with Iraq is straightforward. Iraq has not attacked any state, nor is there any showing whatever that an attack by Iraq is imminent. Therefore self-defense does not justify the use of force against Iraq by the United States or any state.

Added to this, bush himself has repeatedly said Iraq was a "future threat", that we "can't afford to wait until a future attack becomes imminent" and that he "never said the threat from Iraq was 'imminent'".

As well, the "gold standard" of US intelligence is the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate, in which CIA Director George Tenet called the threat from Iraq "low";

George Tenet; "My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack--let me put a time frame on it--in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0306/S00211.htm

The Bush administration's reliance on the need for "regime change" in Iraq as a basis for use of force is also barred by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

Article 2(4) barring the threat or use of force has been described by the International Court of Justice as a peremptory norm of international law, from which states cannot derogate. (Nicaragua v United States, 1986; ICJ Reports 14, at para. 190)

Equally, Chapter VII does not apply, as the Security Council clearly voted against invading Iraq and have in fact declared the invasion illegal and in violation of the UN Charter.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1200535.htm

Any claim that "material breach" of prior cease fire obligations by Iraq justifies use of force by the United States is unavailing. The Gulf War was a Security Council authorized action, not a state versus state conflict; accordingly, it is for the Security Council to determine whether there has been a material breach and whether such breach requires renewed use of force.

Under the UN Charter, which is the foundation of international law, the invasion of Iraq is illegal, and has been deemed so by the UN Security Council.

Pearl Harbor.

Very few Americans would declare Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor to have been legal. Yet the motivation for Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour was to prevent a feared military buildup by the United States. In other words, a preventive strike of a perceived future threat. Also known as the 'Bush Doctrine'.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-03/ps-pwa030503.php

These people all have better information than you, too;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5121232

And;

International legal experts regard Iraq war as illegal

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva expressed its “deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression.”

The rule governing self-defence applies only when an enemy attack has already taken place or is imminent. There is no legal sanction for a preventive war. Should a state regard itself as threatened by another a state, although no hostilities have taken place, the threatened state is obliged to call on the Security Council—the only body authorised to legitimise military action in such a case.

http://www.icj.org/IMG/pdf/Iraq_war_18_03_03_.pdf

It's a principle more honoured in the breech than the observance. There are certainly other situations where waging a war is right, even if it's not legal.

I think that preventing crimes against humanity is a sufficient justification for starting a war of aggression; arguably replacing dictatorships by functioning democracies also is.

I note in passing that by that logic WWII would never have been fought, or at least not until Germany was ready to start it.

Period.

And who are YOU, or ME, or AMERICA, to decide who does and who doesn't get illegal "regime change"?

Invading a sovereign nation that was no threat, and not doing anything to anyone, was wrong, immoral, unjust and illegal. Period.

The answer, broadly is: "those regimes which don't have at least some democratic legitimacy, are committing crimes against humanity, and can be replaced by a better one without doing more harm than good", although arguably the crimes-against-humanity condition shouldn't be necessary.

WRT your last sentence: It was indeed immoral, unjust and illegal in the case of Iraq. Only the last of those, however, follows automatically from the conditions you have stated.

It's not your right, or your business, to decide only governments with "at least some democratic legitimacy" can be.

It is simply not your right to decide for other nation's peoples.

If a country is being governed against the will of its populace, other countries have not merely a right but a duty to try and change that, by regime change if necessary.

The only possible legitimate mandate to govern is the consent of the governed.

we have no duty to go into a country and violently overthrow it just because we think it's against the will of the populace.

I also seriously doubt Bush gives a damn about what Iraqis think or want. Would you apply the same logic to other countries who don't think Bush's reign is legitimate? Should they act on that with force?

Bush was elected, therefor he is legitimate. If he decides to stay on past 2008 then I would start wondering about the case for the invasion of America, although even then I think the "more good than harm" clause would make it unjustified.

"Bush was elected, therefor he is legitimate. "

You of course are entitled to your own opinion.

As am I. And my opinion is with upholding laws.

Yeah... we Liberals, who by the way, have been right about Iraq from the beginning are just a bunch of "moral agents". How stupid...

since Germany posed no threat to the US, and had never, in fact, attacked the US proper.

I don't think the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was morally justified, but it can be legally justified.

The invasion of Iraq was ILLEGAL under international law.

It's all there, very simple, very straightforward.

Have a nice day! :hi:

but that doesn't make it the case. At best, it was quasi-legal and violated the spirit of the law, but not the letter.

WOW I am amazed!

The invasion of Iraq was ILLEGAL. Except of course in your expert opinion. ;)

others disagree. and the UN has approved the new Iraqi government, giving the de facto stamp of approval to the regime change. In fact, the rest of the world, including the UN, feels so strongly about this egregious breach of international law, that they have done, what, exactly? has the GA censured the US? have they refused to seat the new Iraqi government? have they pulled their ambassadors from Washington in protest? have they installed sanctions against the US? have they refused access to the US military? have they petitioned for the release of Saddam Hussein, the illegally deposed, rightful ruler of Iraq?

All those legal experts and the UN you keep citing care so much that they have done nothing. not even paper-filled, meaningless gestures. not one country kicked out the US diplomatic corps. not one country refused the US access to ports or other facilities. not one country even sent us a polite note saying 'tsk, tsk.' so your vaunted international law system really seems kinda useless and meaningless, don't it? not one country is willing to stand up for it. not one. Which is worse, maybe violating the law, or refusing to stand up for a law you think was broken?

The invasion of Iraq was illegal.

The world hasn't invaded and occupied America and regime changed bushCabal, very true. That doesn't change the fact that bush's invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Period.

Now you, as I have posted so many times today, lol, are entitled to your own opinion. :)

not one single country has taken any steps to censure the US for our actions in Iraq. not one. that's how important your international law is. Think about it.

And America vetoes it.

Gee maybe that's why the UN hasn't voted to sanction the USA. And gee, had ya bothered to read the links I provided you, at your request, you'd have read all about why the UN hasn't voted to sanction the USA.

So if I don't get caught, and thus aren't punished, it's ok for me to break laws, like murdering someone?

Think about this; the invasion of Iraq was ILLEGAL.

"MY" international law??! :wow:

Sure glad "MY" international law is not only part of the United States Constitution, but that most nations of the world DON'T feel as you do...or we'd be in far deeper shit than we already are.

no veto stops a country from acting unilateraly, perhaps restricting trade (like the US does with countries who act outside the law) or something along those lines. But no one has done it. strange that.

International law is meaningless under the Westphalian system. welcome to reality. sucks, don't it?

And the US constitution puts treaties on the same footing as US federal law, superceding state laws (Article 6) Therefore, since the US congress gave authorization for the Commander in Chief to spend the money to invade Iraq, it is not, in fact, unconstitutional to do so. Acts of congress, signed by the President, that are within the framework of the Constitution, will always supercede international treaties under US law. or did you have a different clause in the Constitution in mind when you say that international law is enshrined in the Constitution?

other countries do feel as I do, frankly, they just don't have the power to use the system. international law works wonderfully, when the powerful are enforcing it on the weak, since it is painless to do so, not so well when the weak are attempting to impose it on the powerful, and are unwilling to suffer any consequences from doing so.

A power that cannot be corrupted and administers justice fairly.

Utopia.

However, that just isn't in the cards right now.

So like it or not, international law is the best we have and better than nothing.

And bush's invasion of Iraq was illegal and violated the USC and international law.

Welcome to that reality.

a complete trade embargo? what is your remedy, under international law? Obviously, the previous regime should be reinstalled, and reparations paid, that goes without saying, but what sort of penalty should be imposed on the US as punishment?

would I enforce a complete trade embargo against America for bush's illegal war of aggression?

No.

Why would I punish Americans, especially the poor, the young, the old & the infirm?

I would have bush & his war criminal cabal in the dock standing trial for their war crimes.

that We are responsible for what our government does therefore, shouldn't we all pay, not just our leaders? Nuremberg, which you love to cite so much, kinda debunked the 'we were just following orders' crap.

which way is it? we are responsible, and therefore liable, or we aren't. you can't have it both ways.

and what happens to Iraq? we make it whole, put it back where it was on March 19, 2003? that means Saddam is in power, right?

Iraqis were better off under Hussein than they are now...but YOU don't want to turn the clock back to then??!

HELL YES I'd turn the clock back to March 19,2003. Iraqis would be BETTER OFF than they are now, 285,000 wouldn't be dead and God only knows how many wouldn't be wounded; 2400 troops would stillbe alive, 50,000 wouldn't be mentally and/or physically damaged; the world wouldn't hate us; we wouldn't be less safe...

HELL YES I'd turn back the clock...wouldn't ANY sane and compassionate person that knew the facts??!

Ya see, even HRW, ICRC and AI have flat-out stated the illegal war of aggression against Iraq CANNOT be justified as "humanitarian intervention", because there was NOTHING to intervene. Back in the 1980s, sure. But not in 2003...not for 2 decades.

that we should reinstall the Hussein government, re-equip their military and make cash reparations. good plan, that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that means return things to how they were before the invasion, right? if the invasion was wrong, then anything good gained from it is obviously fruit of the poisoned tree. You reset it to how it was, and pay for what you destroyed. To do otherwise is to sanction the invasion and occupation.

you simply cannot have it both ways, taking the legal approach one time and the moral approach the other.

then our dead troops would still be ALIVE; the dead Iraqis would still be ALIVE; Iraqis would be BETTER OFF than they are now; the world wouldn't hate us; we wouldn't be LESS SAFE than we are now.

See here's the thing; it's not possible to turn back the clock. IF it were, I'd say HELL YES.

GOT IT? Yeah I'm sure you do, only it doesn't fit your agenda, does it. ;)

NEVER did I post saying we should "reinstall Hussein" or "re-equip Hussein" or "pay cash reparations".

Now, fact is we cannot turn back the clock. Unfortunately. I wish we could. But we can't.

The legal approach; the invasion of Iraq is ILLEGAL.

The moral approach; the illegal invasion of Iraq is IMMORAL.

Sure dunno why you have such a problem understanding that. Seems straightforward to me. :shrug:

then there must be a remedy. And the only one I can think of is the 'pottery barn' rule. you broke it, you fix it. How else to make Iraq whole, than by returning them to the status of March 19, 2003? anything else is acknowledging that there was justification for the invasion.

If I break into your house and kidnap your kid, I can't replace him with another, similar kid, right? even if you didn't like yours that much? I have to return HIM, not someone else like him. The law doesn't take the moral decision of whether we should return Hussein to power into account. If the invasion was, as you say illegal, then any fruit of that invasion is illegally gained. Sorry, the law's an ass like that.

You're amazing! :D

but the parts you apparently don't like so much. you cannot benefit from an illegal act. You were the one so intent on using the word 'illegal' and now you are the one trying to duck it. I'm confused.

bush's illegal war of aggression against Iraq was ILLEGAL; by international law, and by US law.

And so say the vast majority of the world's legal experts. In fact, even a US Navy judge says so.

But in YOUR OPINION bush's illegal invasion was legal. Hey, believe anything ya like!

I'll go with the facts and the majority of experts.

ILLEGAL.

otherwise, we have to make the original government of Iraq whole. if it's illegal, you must return things to how they were before hand. it's really that simple.

If someone does something illegal, you have to return things to how they were beforehand? Can you make the dead alive again? Thinking not just of Iraq but consider someone murdering someone else. They must make that person alive again? oh dear.

so they can be made whole. If Iraq was a sovereign state, then the government, if possible, should be returned to power. And it's possible, we know exactly where they are.

Sure, you can't replace something irreplacable, but where it is replacable, you must return it. If I steal a vase from you, I don't owe you the value of the vase, if I can return the actual item, right?

You go to jail, or have to pay a fine. Sometimes there is victim recompensation, but that doesn't absolve you from your crime.

but you don't get to keep the spoils in any case, right?

"If I steal a vase from you, I don't owe you the value of the vase, if I can return the actual item, right?"

"If it's illegal, you must return things to how they were before hand. it's really that simple."

I am wasting my time debating your circular arguments and strawmen. Goodbye

again?

If so, THEN I'd say HELL YEAH re-install Hussein!

But ya know what...I just don't think they're gonna come back to life and wholeness.

If we could turn back the clock, THEN HELL YEAH I would! THEN all the dead & maimed would NOT be dead and maimed! THEN we would not be LESS SAFE as we are now! THEN the Iraqi people would not be WORSE OFF NOW!

But ya know what...I don't think that's possible, either. Ya think?

:eyes:

unfortunately, but what we can repair, we are obligated to.

I WISH we COULD turn back the clock to March 19, 2003. Coz THEN the dead would NOT be dead.

That does NOT mean I want Hussein re-installed/re-equiped and whatever else you posted...it means exactly what I said; I WISH we could turn back the clock and I sure as hell WOULD turn back the clock were that possible.

No we can't repair what we have done; we're far beyond that now.

We can try; hold bush & his cabal accountable for their war crimes. Apologize and make restitutions. Get the fuck out of Iraq like the vast majority of Iraqis want. That would all be a good start. But no. we will never repair what bush & his war criminal SOBs have done.

Best twisting and spin I've read in awhile!

the case that it is illegal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution

places US law on the same footing as international treaties. Since the US congress gave authorisation for the action in Iraq (like it or not, they did) the war was not illegal under US law, any other international agreements notwithstanding. And since the US, by legal tradition, doesn't even recognize that International Law applies to us, it wasn't illegal.

It places treaties the US enters into as on the same footing as US law; LAW OF THE LAND.

bush VIOLATED the UN Charter.

bush VIOLATED international law and the USC.

And as the US is a signatory to the UN Charter, the US most certainly DOES recvognize international law; the USC calls it THE LAW OF THE LAND.

You sure are trying hard tho tomake bush's illegal invasion be legal. It isn't, it never was, it never will be. But just WHY are you trying so hard to spin it as legal, I wonder.

and US law wins in a conflict. If, say, the UN passed a binding resolution saying that Abortion was a crime, you would support the US banning Abortion, in line with international law, right? or saying that holocaust denial was a crime, the 1st amendment is superceded, right? How about a resolution that women are subservient to men? if such an act passed, you'd say the US would have to enforce it, right? since international law supercedes US law?

You really are trying hard to make it legal, but sorry no can do. Fact is, it was illegal under international law and the USC.

:)

there's a key difference.

US Constitution; LAW OF THE LAND.

Yhe US is a signatory to the UN Charter; the USC declares all such Treaties to be the law of the land.

bush's invasion violated the UN Charter.

Article 6 says that treaties supercede State and Local laws, not federal laws.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land it doesn't say that treaties are more important than laws made pursuant to the Constitution, in fact, the laws pursuant to the Constitution come before Treaties in the wording. Laws passed after a treaty obviously supercede that treaty, just as treaties supercede any laws passed prior to that treaty's ratification.

At least the rightwingnuts will agree with ya!

The invasion of Iraq was illegal. Fact.

if you read Article 6 to say that international treaties that the US ratifies supercede, forever, any US laws, then yes, you have a point. but no one really reads it that way. The US congress has the power to declare war, and the US president, under US law, has the power to wage war. You haven't shown otherwise.

Have a nice day, and keep on trying to spin bush's illegal war of aggression against Iraq as being legal! 37% of Americans agree with you, so hang in there!

37% of Americans agree with me on a lot of things, like the fact that humans evolved from other species. Since we're taking percentages. I rather like being in that minority, how about you?

or do you only cite percentages of population when it suits your purposes?

about it. :)

since majority rules and all. and the no gay marriage thing as well.

oh, wait, the majority can, in fact, be wrong about things? I don't really like to listen to the majority when the application of the Constitution is in effect, that's why we have a constitution, to protect against pure majority rules.

remember, in 2003 the great majority thought the invasion WAS legal. did you agree then?

Talk about straw man, LOL!!!

Hey, you haven't brought up ABORTION yet in this discussion of bush's illegal war of aggression against Iraq!

:rofl:

I asked what you would think if the UN banned Abortion, since in your view, international law supercedes US law, I assume you'd be the first one at the door of the clinics, arresting the doctors?

reasonable question, actually. you ignored it.

Anything else you can think to throw into this discussion of BUSH'S ILLEGAL INVASION of Iraq? How about that war against Christmas!

:rofl:

you didn't answer it, I notice.

please start a thread doing so. :)

and US law. I asked a reasonable question about how international law relates to US law, based on what you said, and you don't want to answer it. interesting. :)

"Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties of the United States along with federal law and the Constitution itself are the highest law of the land. The United States ratified the UN Charter and therefore under U.S. law the U.S. is bound by the U.N. Charter. Therefore, unless the U.S.-led invasion fell into one of the two exception to the Charter's prohibition against UN member states attacking fellow UN member states provided in Chapter VII of the UN Charter it would be illegal under international as well as U.S. law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements- "

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

Just because the Republican Congress NEVER does anything to Bush doesnt mean that he didnt violate the IWR.

He did so. This is a reporting requirement for 'his determination' only. in his determination, it wasn't going to work, so he invaded and reported, as required. how does that violate IWR?

" reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;"

I'd love to know how he explained this.

Germany was regularly attacking US shipping on the high seas and in US coastal waters.
Germany also declared war on the US in 1941 after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

there was never a peace made after the 1991 war, after all. Iraq routinely violated the terms of the cease fire, including the no-fly zones and harrassment of weapons inspectors, as I recall.

and Germany attacked US shipping because it was being used to support the military aims of countries they were in active war with.

that's a good one...

peace

But I'm joining you with the :rofl: now.

"Iraq had declared war on the US" :rofl:

:wow:

Wow. You REALLY need to read up on facts!

And as I previously posted, there NEVER was any UN terms of "no-fly zones"; those "no-fly zones" were US-UK unilateral action and were illegal.

Geeez.

and should be in the Hague (I hear they have a cell just came open.)

you cannot support a selective application of international law. If Bush is a war criminal for waging an 'illegal' war, then so is Clinton. Right?

The no-fly zones NEVER had any UN resolution supporting them; FACT.

The no-fly zones were illegal; FACT.

Clinton's bombings in the "no-fly zones" were ILLEGAL.

bush's war of aggression, what the Nuremberg Tribunal calls "the supreme crime", is ILLEGAL. FACT.

Nice try. :rofl:

can you post a link to that? otherwise it's kinda hard to take you seriously on this.

glad war crimes are funny to you. nice.

NEWSFLASH for ya!

CLINTON ain't the president of the USA any more!

SHOCKING I know!

War crimes aren't funny, dear...but you sure are! :rofl:

So you support the punishment of war criminals only while the crimes are still ongoing? Or only while they still hold public office? Or what? At what point did you stop caring about seeing Clinton prosecuted, and at what point will you stop caring about seeing Bush prosecuted?

I like to post on CURRENT events; but hey if ya like, why don't we post about war crimes 10 years ago! Hell, 20 years! Nah let's go back 50 years!

After all, not like there's enough current atrocities happening to focus on!

Too fucking funny!

At what point did you stop beating your wife, Mr. Rankin?

:rofl:

Have a nice day!

Iraq. BAD me! Nope, instead of that, I've been keeping up with the current crimes against Iraq by bush. Yep, I must be just a "bush-hater". BAD BAD me!

Never mind the fact that there are several of my posts that do in fact point out the "no-fly zones" under Clinton were illegal and a crime. Nope, that I don't post about that as often as I do about the current war crimes committed against Iraq proves I support war crimes except bush's. :eyes:


Hilarious. :D

I think it would be easier to hold a non-sitting President accountable for his crimes than a sitting one, don't you? on January 21, 2008, will you say that George Bush shouldn't be accountable for violations, since he isn't President any more?

the law's the law, as you say.

posted that Clinton shouldn't be held accountable.

SHOW ME.

LOVE the straw man though, rotfl!!!

OF COURSE Clinton s/be held accountable. But it's 2006; I'm busy enough dealing with the current attrocities and war crimes, especially with a soldier husband backdoor-drafted for the 3rd time & sitting in Iraq.

bush's invasion of Iraq is ILLEGAL.

show me one place where you have. Before this thread, of course.

post of mine where I said Clinton shouldn't be held accountable. :)

Funny how you're having such a difficult time sticking to the topic of BUSH'S illegal war of aggression against Iraq. Clinton, gay marriage...! :rofl:

The US was AT WAR with Germany when the Normandy invasion occurred.

"(Dec. 11)1941: Germany and Italy declare war on US
Germany and Italy have announced they are at war with the United States. America immediately responded by declaring war on the two Axis powers.
..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm

although not formally, in a dictatorship such niceties are irrelevant.

Or were you referring to his "intentions"? :rofl:

in a dictatorship such niceties are irrelevant.

by allocating money to pay for it (the only real power that Congress has) or did I miss where Congress refused to pay money for the invasion and occupation?

Under the War Powers Act, which may or may not be constitutional since it's never been challenged in court it remains the law of the land, the President has 60 days to report to Congress and get approval to spend money on war. The Congress has approved it so far.

They have not authorized "war", they authorised use of force, not "war" and just because they keep funding "use of force" doesn't mean they authorized "war". And many things have not been challenged in court, but that doesn't mean they are unconstitutional.

as long as Congress continues to authorize funding for the occupation of Iraq, it will be technically legal under US law, as bad an idea as it is.

and until something is overturned in the Congress or the Courts, it is considered the law of the land, right?

Not being held accountable for breaking the law. Technically illegal. Someday perhaps they will be held accountable for breaking the law.

In the meantime, death, destruction are happening. The future for all of us looks bleak. Not just who will be injured (physically, emotionally) or die, but what will the children of these children do and feel when, if, they grow up? Around and around and around and around.

Technically this invasion is an illegal war. Realistically here we are.

1. There was no UN in 1944.

2. The assault on France would have been a response to the German aggression of 1939 and 1940. Nobody could argue that the Security Council would NOT have authorized it.

"Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII). "

had, in essence, approved the use of violence against Iraq, (1441) the invasion was given at least the cover of international legal legitimacy.

The bombing of Pearl Harbor didn't violate any existing international law, since it was prior to the creation of the UN charter, and the only relvant international body, the League of Nations, did not include either Japan or the United States.

and you never addressed the unconstitutional argument you posed.

Read closer; 1441 had NOTHING whatsoever to do with bush's illegal invasion of Iraq.

The UN itself has called the invasion of Iraq ILLEGAL.

but the Secretary doesn't set international law anymore than the US president determines domestic law. The UN Security Council determines the law where military action is concerned, flawed as it is. And the Security Council has not condemmed the action, indeed, it is, in essence, certified it. If the GA really thought the invasion was illegal, then it would not seat the current Iraqi government, which it has done. There is a de facto approval in place.

international law is really a funny place to be.

Fact.

The invasion of Iraq was ILLEGAL.

Fact.

As for UN Resolution 1441;

"This resolution contains no 'hidden triggers' and no 'automaticity' with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a Member State, the matter will return to the council for discussion."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/15/1037080913814...

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

THAT is why the UN Security Council voted unanimously for UNR 1441. So to turn around and say 1441 gives legal cover for armed force is patently untrue.

The invasion of Iraq was ILLEGAL. Period.

the Security Council never refused the US permission to enforce previous resolutions, including the ones implementing the cease fire that ended the 1991 war, which the government of Irq routinely violated. We didn't need an imprimptaur to begin a war, we were still at war from the last time, if we're talking legality. Legally, there was never a peace treaty, therefore we were still in a state of war. And once in a state of war, invasion is never off the table.

So yes, once the first shot was fired at a US plane enforcing the no-fly zones enshrined in the cease fire, the US was perfectly legally justified in retaliating by invading. 1441 is basically irrelevant.

There was NEVER any UN resolution for those no-fly zones.


And you are, in fact, totally wrong about the "still at war" premis. ANd had you bothered to actually read the links I posted, you'd know that & you'd know why.

The invasion of Iraq was illegal. That's just a fact, regardless how much you want it not to be. :)

or are we now to the stage where we need laws allowing us to do something, instead of laws forbidding action?

My dear. FACT; the no-fly zones were not legal, were not UN-sanctioned.

It's just a FACT.

Don't like it? Oh well. Get over it.

:shrug:

The reason the invasion of Iraq was a mistake was because it was unjust and immoral.

I would have supported illegal regime change if I thought there was a possibility that the incoming regime would be any good.

It's my right not to. :)

How come Iraq's nation is innocent while their government is not, and our nation is responsible for what Bush is doing?

Why do you make that distinction for Iraq but not the US?

IRAQ was NOT DOING ANYTHING TO ANYONE. IRAQ was NOT invading anyone, NOT occupying anyone, NOT threatening anyone.

There was no basis for Iraq to be invaded because Iraq was NOT DOING ANYTHING TO ANYONE.

America IS.

If you class Iraqis as "not anyone". I don't. I don't think "they come from the same country as me" is a justification for mass murder.

So you're ok with illegally invading them and forcing a "better" government on them. Or onto any other nation's peoples who have governments you don't approve of.

The people of Iraq don't agree with you. I don't agree with you. Most the world doesn't agree with you.

And as much as I detest the current US regime, NO FUCKING WAY do I think any other nation has the right to invade and occupy America and force a "better" government on us. And that goes even if bush were "mass murder"ing Americans, instead of just Iraqis and Aghanis.

And should any other nation invade & occupy America to regime change the current criminals squatting in the WHite House, I'd be labelled a "dead-ender bush-lover" and "insurgent-slash-terrorists".

WHEN ASKED to help regime change, fine, I can see validity in that; but who the fuck do you think you are to determine what governments other nations can & can't have.

Law, while not perfect, is the law. It's all we have and it's better than no law. Regime change is wrong, it's illegal. Always. And on that note we'll have to agree to disagree here. :)

I certainly think I know better than the previous Iraqi regime, but that's not what I've been saying. *I* don't have a mandate to call for regime change, but the people living under a regime do, and if and when they do so then I think they should be given it where possible.

The one thing that nearly all Iraqis *did* agree on was that they wanted regime change.(The reason I *didn't* support the invasion of Iraq was that there was no agreement from them as to what they wanted next, and under those circumstances it wasn't worth it).

Coz even the KURD leader opposed our invading & regime-changing them.

The people of Iraq NEVER asked us to regime-change them.

And at least half of our country did not vote for W.

Our elected reps never got an actual vote on a declaration of war, just a vote on whether or not W had the authority, in principal, to make war.

So show me where this is my fault, or anyone else that has been arguing against this course of action since day one? Because I live here? Give me a break.

Don't blame me. I voted for the other guy. Twice.

Can you not distinguish between "responsibility" and "fault"?

Every single thing any US government does is our responsibility. What US governments do isn't always our fault. But our responsibility? HELL YES.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fault
fault (n.)
2. Responsibility for a mistake or an offense; culpability. See Synonyms at blame.


"It's not my fault we're committing genocide."

"But I am responsible for genocide in Iraq." Both statements can't be true.

Doesn't fly with me. Sorry.

I didn't do it. I am not taking responsibility for it. It's their mess. It's my job to MAKE SURE THEY CLEAN IT UP. That's my duty as an American.

If you disagree with that, fine, that's your right. :)

Sorry, but that just doesn't fly. Saddam's government had a long list of sins, not the least of which was the invasion of Kuwait, for which it was still under UN sanctions. Only US and UK enforcement of a no-fly zone before the war kept Saddam from wreaking havoc on the Kurds.

Did the US fuck up invading Iraq? Yes. Was Iraq innocent? No.

BTW, if you think the US is committing genocide, what people do you think it is trying to eliminate in Iraq? The Kurds? The Sunni? The Shi'a?

One of the things we Democrats should emphasize is that we, unlike the religious right that has taken over the GOP, are reasonable people who live in the reality-based community. Playing the moonbat hurts that distinction.

That's GENOCIDE, dear.

"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide

"The murder of a whole group of people, especially a whole nation, race or religious group" - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=32516&dict=CALD

"The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" - http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/genocide

America hasn't been doing that, or anything remotely like it.

What is has been doing is arguably mass murder, although mass manslaughter through criminal negligence is probably closer to the mark.

If not I would suggest you go do some reasearch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein

In 1976, Saddam rose to the position of general in the Iraqi armed forces. He rapidly became the strongman of the government. At the time Saddam was considered an enemy of communism and radical islamism, and at one point Donald Rumsfeld, special envoy of President Ronald Reagan at the time, met with him. Saddam was integral to US policy in the region which tried to weaken the influence of Iran and the Soviet Union. As Iraq's weak and elderly President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr became increasingly unable to execute the duties of his office, Saddam began to take an increasingly prominent role as the face of the Iraqi government, both internally and externally. He soon became the architect of Iraq's foreign policy and represented the nation in all diplomatic situations. He was the de facto ruler of Iraq some years before he formally came to power in 1979. He slowly began to consolidate his power over Iraq's government and the Ba'ath party. Relationships with fellow party members were carefully cultivated, and Saddam soon gained a powerful circle of support within the party.


Probably still thinks the Iraqis were throwing Kuwaiti babies from incubators and massing troops on the Saudi border? Shame.

Don

the Purple Plastic People Chopper. You know, the one Hussein used to chop people up. Feet in first of course, to "prolong their agony".

Dunno whether to laugh or cry at the immense gullibility of so many Americans.

oh you mean TODAY? or 3 years ago . . . Iraq?

Or, for that matter, America in Kosovo.

The invasion of Iraq was moth immoral and illegal, but the former does not automatically follow from the latter.

We didn't vote for this regime. We didn't ask them or want them to do a damn thing. The supreme court installed bush and it appears that he may have stolen 2004.

The nation didn't invade Iraq. bush and his cabal did. Post 9/11 people were scared because of the rhetoric bush used to drag us there. Corporate media did their part in not doing their jobs informing the public or questioning bush.

They're the nazis. We're not.

will not get the US out of Iraq. IMO, commentary which can be brushed off as "looney" does not help bringing our forces home, voting Republicans out of office, and minimizing the damage (which will take 25 years to fix) done by *.

And in truth the actions of the United States are exactly what all nation-states have done since I don't know, Assyria and Sargon II.

Doesn't change the FACTS.

was looney. However, will you concede that others will label it as such?

What is needed now is rational discourse in order to retake the House and Senate.

And over the top statements do not aid in that goal, no matter how ardently one may feel they are correct.

a loony remark. I don't give a damn what "some people" may or may not think or say.

If FACT is "over the top", well gee, maybe past time to discuss it openly and often.

Questioning the State is always good, maybe not good for your health though...

kind of like a moonbat, whatever that is. I'll take both of those and run with them. Suits me fine. I've got game. Let's get out there and kick some Bush butt!

You kick the bastard's butt...I'll get the other side.

I hear you Lynn.

This war was illegal and while America may be footing the bill the price is being paid in blood by the people of Iraq.

No matter how much Americans try and make themselves feel better by saying how evil Saddam was, the fact remains that we sat back and let this slaughter take place. Americans chose to pretend we were the "good guys" and Saddam was the "bad guy". The reality isn't black and white though, it's various shades of grey that are stained with the blood of innocents.

Starting a war of agression is the prime war crime.

Nazis? Close enough.

Imperialist and colonialist I'd debate. Bush specifically doesn't want to get involved in nation building; he invaded Iraq for reasons related to America, not Iraq, and - I suspect - wants to get out again as soon as he can without looking bad.

Colonization is never in the interest of the colonized nation, it is in the interest of the colonizer.
Pulling out won't happen soon, given the military bases being build over there. It won't happen until most of the oil in the Caspian basin is extracted, by then W will most likely no longer be in power.

They don't intend to leave.

When we fire up the ovens and start genocide, you can make that claim.

Right now we're just Corporate Fascists trying to expand our financial empire.

the millions murdered?

Nazis were nazis for years before the mass murdering began. So we just wait until bushCabal rack up a few millions in bodycount, THEN we can compare?! Kinda late by then, isn't it?

The Germans have been comparing the two for 4 years now; they should know.

Not just "very unpleasant political movement".

Bush believes in the abolition of the state, not its glorification; he's not anti-semitic or interested in eugenics; he doesn't want to extend America's formal rule, he's a firm believer in the principle if not the practice of democracy. He's not even a fascist, let alone a nazi.

Words have meanings. Only use a word if it actually means what you're using it to mean, not just for political effect.

for your statements about Bush's beliefs.

Bush certainly does NOT believe in a transparent government "Of the People" (democracy).

And that's a fact.

But that's not what I'm saying. They weren't Nazis until they adopted the system of beliefs known as nazism, and Bush hasn't.

Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection

by Edwin Black
Sunday, November 9, 2003

Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a so-called Master Race.

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little-known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the pseudoscience aimed at "improving" the human race. In its extreme, racist form, this meant wiping away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in 27 states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the 20th century's first decades, California's eugenicists included potent but little-known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles Goethe, as well as members of the California state Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.

Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims.

CONTINUED...

http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/offSiteArchive/www.sfgate.com/index.html

There is no other word to describe such a nation.

Good people oppose them.

:yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

:hug:

:D

I blame Bush and the Republicans.

The American people didn't have an honest election in 2000 - it was stolen from us.

We were lied to by the same people who were put in office by the stolen election.

Rampant cronyism and lies have defined this administration.

The American people are VICTIMS, just like the people of Iraq are.

As citizens, we are responsible for our government's actions.

And by the way, many Republicans said HELL NO to bush's illegal invasion of Iraq and many Democrats & Indys said HELL YEAH.

And as an American citizen, I accept my part of the responsibility.

However, I did not vote for Bush, nor did I agree with the invasion of Iraq. I told my elected :eyes: representatives (although they do not represent me), that I was against an invasion of Iraq. Therefore, I accept no blame for the consequences of the war in Iraq.

That blame rests solely on George Bush's shoulders.

Democrats and Republicans, just something about the election. But, for some reason, you went out of your way to defend Republicans and criticize Democrats. How come?

Oh for fuck's sake!

FACT; many DEMS said HELL YEAH and many Republicans said HELL NO. FACT.

Love your not-so-sublt hint that I'm maybe not as "left" as I should be...go search my posts.

Yah know, it's bad enough putting up with this bullshit from rightwingnuts, to having been cyber-stalked, for their threats to "get" me and my soldier-husband for opposing bush & Cabal...but that I have to put up with this BULLSHIT on here, too???!

READ MY LIPS.

that is blatantly violating international law.

That's the kind of thing that the UN International Police should deal with harshly.

Oh, wait...nevermind.

Good one. :D

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Ya know what, I put up with 3 years of being cyber-stalked by motherfucking rightwingnuts.

I put up with threats against me, and against my soldier husband for our opposing the bush regime.

FACTS are FACTS, and if YOU think the FACTS equals "America is the enemy spiel" then maybe -JUST MAYBE- you should be taking a good look at America.

I am so fucking sick & tired of rightwingnut moron idiots who think posting FACTS means you;'re a "bush hater" or "America hater" or "Saddam lover" et-fucking-al.

I'm even more sick & tired of supposed non-rightwingnuts spouting the same fucking bullshit.

we would be OK. I think the poster was really referring to Bush's regime/junta?

fascistic or "early Nazi" (before the blitzkriegs and gas chambers).

I think Lynn is railing against the Criminal Bush Regime, not America itself.

And I think that's wholly appropriate.

No of course I wasn't railing against America itself.

But I did need laughs, and me being called out by brentspeak as a mole for the motherfucking rightwingnuts REALLY made my day! :rofl:

And PS brentspeak; why dontcha go read about me on the motherfucking rightwingnut's "Hall of Fame". Must just be a double-bluff, huh! :rofl:

allied with several piranha fish!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They're dumber every day, but fucking hilarious! :rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

While our guys are fighting them over there, the jackboots will be kicking your door down over here.

It goes beyond being fascist or totalitarian. You don't have to invade countries to be a fascist or totalitarian, but when you do then you are an imperialist or empire builder usually under the fist of a dictator.

Saddam Hussein never did anything against the US. We had no business bothering in his affairs or any body else's. If he had come over here, that would be different. But who are we to tell a country how they run their country? Who are we to illegally remove an elected president? I dare say Iraq's 2002 election was less tainted than our 2000 and 2004 elections. We have enough problems to tend to here in the US without tending to other countries.