"But any Congress member or Senator who claims to be voting for a war that neither Americans nor Iraqis want because of the crumbs for good things had better be signed onto Congressman Jim McGovern's bill to simply end funding for the war. Otherwise that Congress member or Senator is a hypocrite and a murderer lacking the nerve of a Texas idiot to stand up and say, 'I am a murderer, what are you going to do about it?'
"Because, let's be clear: an aggressive war without UN sanction, whether marketed on a mountain of lies or not, is a crime and the legal equivalent of mass murder."
1 comment:
Nadir: You recently dismissed the opinion of Larry Elders because you say he has a political perspective, and thus presumably cherry-picks his information to advocate his view. Then now you post this missive from a truthout.org author. Do you recognize an inconsistency here?
I don't figure the perspectives of these authors in evauating their essays; I stick with facts and logic. On the subject of logic: "An aggressive war without UN santion is a crime and the legal equivalent of mass murder." That statement is illogical. Any aggressive war that lacks the approval of the UN -- which consists mostly of dictators -- is legally equivilant to mass murder? If you can provide any evidence that US troops have targetted civilians, that would qualify as mass murder independant of UN approval, and a war that lacks UN approval can include mass murder only if troops target civilians. I am most curious for the legal citation that defines unsanctioned war as automatically qualifying as mass murder.
The Hussein government certainly practiced mass murder, including within its two unapproved aggressive wars against Iran and Kuwait, the latter of which led to cease-fire sanctions that it violated for ten years prior to the Bush invasion. And the enforcement of those santions provided legal UN approval of the Bush invasinon, no?
Post a Comment