more iraq
US official admits that the invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. Of course, this is the fault of the UN, and particularly France.
THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against ( Read more... )
THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against ( Read more... )
Re: The accusation of a double standard.
You said:
That's a lot of investigation and NO actual proof of ANY misdeeds. When (or if) they're found guilty of any of that stuff, you may have a point. Until then they're innocent and should be free to spend their free time as they choose. In fact, the article even mentions that they have been looked at and found innocent.
yet it was not illegal, for the US to invade iraq even though, iraq had been cleared of possessing WMDs, which was the stated reason for the invasion.
my accusation of the double standard was : That if Simcox should be left alone to do as he will, since he was proven innocent, that iraq should have had the same treatment because they were declared innocent, and have since been proven innocent, because the place has been crawling with american troops for the last two years and they STILL have not found any WMDs. Iraq was persecuted even though it was innocent.
Re: proof.
Well proof was found before about the WMDs and it didn't seem to matter. Did it?
Proof : i can't find this article. but it is quoted here
"Rights groups have been voicing their concern about these groups for quite a while. Over two years ago, the Derechos Humanos (Human Rights) Coalition of Tucson complained that ‘vigilantes’ like Roger Barnett and others have openly violated state and federal laws since 1999, stopping vehicles on public highways, detaining and assaulting people at gun point, and shooting at undocumented immigrants. (American Friends Service Committee, June 2000) Around the same time, the Mexican government urged the U.S. to stop vigilantes hunting illegal immigrants crossing the border. (BBC, May 18, 2000)"
okay? is that proof enough that there is SOME validity to my arguement here, or do you want video footage and spent casings?
Reply
Why do you INSIST on bringing up the invasion of Iraq as some sort of justification for your argument when no one in this discussion (even the person who keeps citing it as his defense!) condones the U.S. occupation of that country? "But, but.. Look at what America did! You guys must agree!" What's so hard about going, "Oh, that makes sense. I didn't think of it like that."..? Is it that preposterous to imagine that this dude didn't know where the imaginary line existed? If you were to travel from Australia to New Zealand, would you know the precise moment you left Australian waters or airspace? At this point, you're just trying to cling to any wrong-doing he might have done. Fine, the guy wandered into the National Park with a firearm and he's a bad man. He broke the law and should be punished! Off with his head! But getting a parking ticket is a pretty far cry from being a murderous vigilante.
The burden of proof is on the accusers, my friend. I can sit here and scream from the highest mountain that smokedamage molests little boys until I'm blue in the face, but that doesn't make it any less untrue (I'm assuming here). Without anything to back it up, my accusations are just accusations and nothing more. Hell, you can even be investigated and sent to trial and even THEN it doesn't make it so!
It's not your concerns that aren't valid. It's your conclusion of guilt.
Reply
KeL
Reply
I would not be surprised if this moron with a gun, who hunts mexicans for fun, would not have a map, and wouldn't have a clue where he was, however i would think a sensible man might have 1) a map, and 2) a clue where he is going.
Fine, he's not guilty of... er, what did i accuse him of?
I bring up the invasion because it is an unlawful act, and to be honest i don't give a shit about Simcox, but i do care about the illegality of an invasion from one sovereign nation to the other, costing thousands of lives, for no reason. Why is this acceptable? Why hasn't more been done? Why wasn't it stopped? What is this inevitablilty that seems to be unstoppable?
What is to stop Bush staying on as president? The Supreme Court? He's already ignored them on a number of issues. The army? Isn't he the supreme commander? Really what's to stop him?
Reply
Leave a comment