tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post2175300766353486312..comments2024-03-19T01:24:14.629-05:00Comments on Althouse: "President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger207125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72524093567960046462007-12-06T12:32:00.000-06:002007-12-06T12:32:00.000-06:00"I guess that translates into get it over quick an...<I>"I guess that translates into get it over quick and cheap and regardless of the legalities, you get a pass."</I><BR/><BR/>That depends on what you mean by "a pass."<BR/><BR/>If you mean: most Americans won't notice what's happening and will not look beyond the rhetoric employed by the government to justify it's actions...yes, of course! That's why Rumsfeld wanted to go into Iraq with a small force, and why Gen. Shinseki was sacked for providing a more realistic--but undesirably (to the administration) larger--estimate of the force of men that would be needed to successfully take the country and maintain stability. They were afraid of a public outcry against such an obviously major committment of men and materiel.<BR/><BR/>If you mean the actions--if criminal--are somehow "not criminal," no, of course not.<BR/><BR/>But then, who beside the American public at large has given Clinton a pass? The hard right and the hard left both hate him and deem him criminal, and rightly so. Although, if the hard right were intellectually honest and consistent, they would then also hate Li'l Butch for his criminal acts and rape of the Republic.Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28890838827797975992007-12-06T06:55:00.000-06:002007-12-06T06:55:00.000-06:00I don't see myself as a hard lefty, but I turned a...<I>I don't see myself as a hard lefty, but I turned away from Clinton when he gutted welfare;</I><BR/><BR/>To me it was his finest moment considering the dismal failure welfare has been for the last oh, 40 years.<BR/><BR/><I>Had our engagement in Kosovo lasted longer, cost more money, cost more American lives, and resulted in the violations to our Constitution as has our "war on terror" (sic), I'm sure we would have seen protests and marches larger against that war. As it was, it was over before most Americans were probably even really conscious of it.</I><BR/><BR/>I guess that translates into get it over quick and cheap and regardless of the legalities, you get a pass.Hoosier Daddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12872965118921894534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40402932506729561932007-12-06T02:21:00.000-06:002007-12-06T02:21:00.000-06:00C-fudd gets his talking points from his idol and m...C-fudd gets his talking points from his idol and main suckee Pat Buchanan (obviously C-fudd is too stupid to have ever had an original idea of his own in his life). Of course Peppermint Patty himself is one of the all-time jokes and losers of American politics, as you would expect from an admiree of C-fudd.Gary Rosenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00338791760274457388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-70525450746891094542007-12-05T21:00:00.000-06:002007-12-05T21:00:00.000-06:00cedarford, cedarford, just when i think you can't ...cedarford, cedarford, just when i think you can't go any lower, you go and defend the biggest bunch of criminals in the history of the world -- how shocking that an appalling anti-semite like yourself would be a closet nazi. <BR/><BR/><I>The case against America was even easier, as for 6 months FDR had blatantly violated laws of neutrality to help Britain, Canada and the Germans thoroughly documented each breach. For those 6 months, the Germans hoped against hope that they could avoid fighting America and maintain neutrality. Then Japan attacked and Germany figured that it had to war to cut war supplies America was sending the UK and the Soviets.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>this is ignorant of history, patriotism, and common sense. <BR/><BR/><I>And the irony about the Nazis is that if wild-eyed radical Jews had not been principals in creating the Red Terror, killing millions, and launching the transnational Communist Revolution and scaring the shit out of the rest of Europe - chances are the Nazis would have never arisen as a political entity in reaction to the Terror and the people behind it. Nor the Fascists of Italy.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>simply.disgusting.The Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-86299335006333606902007-12-05T20:21:00.000-06:002007-12-05T20:21:00.000-06:00NATO members thought the war was a threat to the p...<I>NATO members thought the war was a threat to the peace and stability of Europe</I><BR/><BR/>That's nice, but the NATO treaty doesn't authorize bombing people in order to protect "the peace and stability of Europe".<BR/><BR/><I>And I was entertained by the notion that fulfilling our NATO obligations would require the approval of Congress.</I><BR/><BR/>No wonder you flunked out of law school.<BR/><BR/><I>I never realized he'd actually have to wait for Congress to assemble itself and give him the go-ahead.</I><BR/><BR/>The legal consensus is that the President has the authority to respond to immediate military threats without a declaration of war (that would be the "pushing the button" scenario you describe). A 13-week bombing campaign undertaken after months of negotiations and arguing is not a response to an immediate military threat. Any prolonged military action (such as, hint hint, a three-month bombing campaign) requires Congressional authorization.<BR/><BR/>Japan actually <B>bombed American territory</B> and FDR still needed Congress' permission to go to war with them. Clinton just granted himself permission based on the transparent lie that NATO was in immediate danger. But then the law never meant anything to Clinton, did it?Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-2359005542115678782007-12-05T16:28:00.000-06:002007-12-05T16:28:00.000-06:00"I'm perfectly willing to accept that Clinton comm...<B>"I'm perfectly willing to accept that Clinton committed a war crime in taking us into Kosovo. I frankly don't know enough about the details of what happened to assert it was a war crime, because I wasn't paying close attention at the time,"</B><BR/><BR/><I>Funny how few people really paid attention to what Clinton did or did not do during his tenure.</I><BR/><BR/>I can't speak for others, but, for what it's worth, at the time of our involvement in Kosovo, I was dealing with a life-threatening illness that had me in and out of the hospital; I was a tad bit more concerned about personal matters than political issues at the time.<BR/><BR/>As an aside, I didn't have a computer then and to the degree I did try to pay attention to foreign affairs, I could only rely on our MSM's fairly poor reporting of world news to glean what little I did know about Kosovo at the time.<BR/><BR/><B>"don't assume Clinton gets a free ride from the left."</B><BR/><BR/><I>No of course not. The mass protests, demonstrations and outcry over the illegality of the war are seared, seared into my memory.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, you assume that the mass of people who protest our criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq are leftists; I don't. I assume they're mostly concerned citizens from across the political spectrum, of which a small number may be committed lefties. <BR/><BR/>In the case of Clinton, aside from the hard right, it is the hard left who most vilify him, as they have probably done the most looking at his record. (Those in the broad middle largely like him then and still do.)I don't see myself as a hard lefty, but I turned away from Clinton when he gutted welfare; in the next election I voted for Nader.<BR/><BR/>I doubt most Americans paid much attention to our activities in Kosovo at the time, as it was a relatively brief involvement that was sold (rightly or wrongly) as a "humanitarian intervention" to "stop a genocide." Well, most Americans who today abhor our involvement in Iraq did not abhor it in the beginning, and probably don't see it as the war crime it is, but have only come to scorn it over time, and mostly because we didn't "win" quickly and because it's become apparent what a waste of human lives (and money) it is. Had our engagement in Kosovo lasted longer, cost more money, cost more American lives, and resulted in the violations to our Constitution as has our "war on terror" (sic), I'm sure we would have seen protests and marches larger against that war. As it was, it was over before most Americans were probably even really conscious of it.Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-50147282711423264372007-12-05T16:11:00.000-06:002007-12-05T16:11:00.000-06:00I just love Cedarford's version of history. The J...I just love Cedarford's version of history. The Jews are responsible for both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. But of course Nazi Germany was a good thing. They had no choice but to attack Russia and the U.S. It was of course the perfidy of the Russians that forced Hitler into war with the USSR, it would have never crossed his mind if not for their violation of the pact, after all he was a man of honor. As for the Americans, the Germans did everything they could to avoid war, so what if a few stray torpedoes hit American ships, they were asking for it. <BR/><BR/>You really shouldn't trust the scholars over at Stormfront to look for support for the "ironclad" case for Germany's war declaration against the U.S.Freder Fredersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01498410102809290399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-43918511588036841732007-12-05T10:31:00.001-06:002007-12-05T10:31:00.001-06:00You sound like one of those pro-life cranks who ca...<I>You sound like one of those pro-life cranks who can't find the right to abortion in the Constitution.</I><BR/><BR/>Well I am agnostic on the whole abortion issue but now that you bring it up, I certainly am not aware of which amendment covers it.<BR/><BR/><I> The former Yugoslavia -- a historic part of Europe</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, historic since what 1919? <BR/><BR/><I> -- was going to hell. NATO members thought the war was a threat to the peace and stability of Europe, and voted under Article 4 to stop it. We are a NATO member state, so we took our share of responsibility.</I><BR/><BR/>NATO members ‘thought’ like the US and the Coalition thought Saddam had WMDs. Have you actually read Article 4? If so you will see it has nothing to do with Europe and everything to do with the parties of NATO, of which, Kosovo was not a member. We had a better casus belli against Iraq just based upon violations of the no-fly zone than the NATO charter provided against Serbia. <BR/><BR/><I>Further, because you apparently think, for example, that civil war in Mexico would not have any harmful impact on the US, you will not care that the same year Nato added three Eastern European countries, including nearby Czechia and Poland. </I><BR/><BR/>Well considering there ISN’T a civil war in Mexico currently, that hasn’t stopped some 15-20 million illegal immigrants flooding the US yet the left goes into convulsions when someone mentions closing the border much less using military action. And what if there was, do you honestly believe we could get NATO to help us police that up? <BR/><BR/>By the way, who is Czechia? Do you mean Chechnya or the Czech Republic cause only one of them was invited.<BR/><BR/><I>And I was entertained by the notion that fulfilling our NATO obligations would require the approval of Congress. </I><BR/><BR/>Glad you were amused. Guess we simply have a difference of opinion as to what our NATO obligations are, insofar as the Charter is pretty explicit in when military force is to be used. I mean I can see if say, Italy or Greece was being flooded with hundreds of thousands of refugees or Serbian artillery was shelling across their borders but they weren’t. NATO intervention on legal grounds was tenuous at best, certainly in lieu of the reasons for going into Iraq. <BR/><BR/><I> All through the Cold War I read novels about WW III; that the President could push the button at any time. I never realized he'd actually have to wait for Congress to assemble itself and give him the go-ahead.</I><BR/><BR/>Clearly your understanding of the NATO charter is based upon novels as well.Hoosier Daddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12872965118921894534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67891364750837385792007-12-05T10:31:00.000-06:002007-12-05T10:31:00.000-06:00All through the Cold War I read novels about WW II...<I>All through the Cold War I read novels about WW III; that the President could push the button at any time. I never realized he'd actually have to wait for Congress to assemble itself and give him the go-ahead.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes becasue everyone knows that the President derives his war powers thru what contemporary novelists use in their thrillers as a plot device.SGT Tedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00184808889760136366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-50100714796604933122007-12-05T09:43:00.000-06:002007-12-05T09:43:00.000-06:00Unless Hoosier Daddy advocates that the US shirk i...<I>Unless Hoosier Daddy advocates that the US shirk its treaty obligations, I don't see what choice we had. The NATO member state most directly affected was of course Greece.<BR/><BR/>You clearly have not read the NATO charter and what it requires for the use of military force.</I><BR/><BR/>You sound like one of those pro-life cranks who can't find the right to abortion in the Constitution. The former Yugoslavia -- a historic part of Europe -- was going to hell. NATO members thought the war was a threat to the peace and stability of Europe, and voted under Article 4 to stop it. We are a NATO member state, so we took our share of responsibility.<BR/><BR/>Further, because you apparently think, for example, that civil war in Mexico would not have any harmful impact on the US, you will not care that the same year Nato added three Eastern European countries, including nearby Czechia and Poland. <BR/><BR/>And I was entertained by the notion that fulfilling our NATO obligations would require the approval of Congress. All through the Cold War I read novels about WW III; that the President could push the button at any time. I never realized he'd actually have to wait for Congress to assemble itself and give him the go-ahead.former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-5390758101312333532007-12-05T06:48:00.000-06:002007-12-05T06:48:00.000-06:00Unless Hoosier Daddy advocates that the US shirk i...<I>Unless Hoosier Daddy advocates that the US shirk its treaty obligations, I don't see what choice we had. The NATO member state most directly affected was of course Greece.</I><BR/><BR/>You clearly have not read the NATO charter and what it requires for the use of military force. <BR/><BR/>Please cite the references in which Greece was under attack or threat of attack from Serb forces. <BR/><BR/><I>I'm perfectly willing to accept that Clinton committed a war crime in taking us into Kosovo. I frankly don't know enough about the details of what happened to assert it was a war crime, because I wasn't paying close attention at the time,</I><BR/><BR/>Funny how few people really paid attention to what Clinton did or did not do during his tenure.<BR/><BR/><I>don't assume Clinton gets a free ride from the left.</I><BR/><BR/>No of course not. The mass protests, demonstrations and outcry over the illegality of the war are seared, seared into my memory.Hoosier Daddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12872965118921894534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-43259318201763746012007-12-05T06:14:00.000-06:002007-12-05T06:14:00.000-06:00Rosencrank - The question was about "aggressive wa...Rosencrank - The question was about "aggressive war". At Nuremburg, the charge was made, but the accused were prohibited by judges from defending themselves on that specific charge. We do know that in WWII, that the Nazis did "aggressive war" in the full sense on Poland then later on Norway and Greece, but not on the 4 victors. France and the UK declared war in Germany for invading Poland but conspicuously not on their Soviet Comrades. Soviets, who before then had initiated aggressive war on the Baltic States and Finland.<BR/><BR/>The official German declarations of War on the USA and the Soviet Union were quite detailed. Neither the Russians or the Americans had a leg to stand on. The Russians subverted the Ribbentrop Pact and led to HItler & Co determining coexistence with the Soviets was impossible because they could not be trusted, and setting up Operation Barbarossa. <BR/>The case against America was even easier, as for 6 months FDR had blatantly violated laws of neutrality to help Britain, Canada and the Germans thoroughly documented each breach. For those 6 months, the Germans hoped against hope that they could avoid fighting America and maintain neutrality. Then Japan attacked and Germany figured that it had to war to cut war supplies America was sending the UK and the Soviets.<BR/><BR/>Scholars call the German case against America "ironclad". <BR/><BR/>As for all your Chosen People gibberish, Jews like all today's people on the planet, are here because their ancestors survived. BFD.<BR/><BR/>4000 years?<BR/><BR/>You're nothing special in that sense.<BR/><BR/>And the irony about the Nazis is that if wild-eyed radical Jews had not been principals in creating the Red Terror, killing millions, and launching the transnational Communist Revolution and scaring the shit out of the rest of Europe - chances are the Nazis would have never arisen as a political entity in reaction to the Terror and the people behind it. Nor the Fascists of Italy.Cedarfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00602418702398818596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-46681172294012910322007-12-05T04:20:00.000-06:002007-12-05T04:20:00.000-06:00The US had obligations for the defense of Europe u...<I>The US had obligations for the defense of Europe under the NATO Treaty. The NATO treaty was approved by the Senate in a vote of 82 to 13 on July 21, 1949.</I><BR/><BR/>You haven't read the treaty, obviously. We had no treaty obligations in Kosovo. It doesn't matter what the majority voted; NATO members are only obligated to provide military assistance if a member is attacked or militarily threated. The Serbs posed even less of a threat to the NATO nations than Iraq did to America. Clinton and the other fans of war in Kosovo justified our attack by claiming that the war "threatened the territorial integrity, political independence or security of [NATO signatories]". That was, and is, a transparent lie; no such threat existed, nor was there any credible way in which it could. <BR/><BR/>In summary, the war in Kosovo violated:<BR/><BR/>(1): American law, because Congress didn't authorize it (and its authorization would have been necessary even IF the NATO treaty obligated us to help)<BR/><BR/>(2): The NATO treaty, which forbids NATO military action unless its members are directly threatened or attacked,<BR/><BR/>(3): International law (not that I care), and <BR/><BR/>(4): The UN Charter (about which, again, I do not care, but which most of the people lining up to kiss Clinton's ass do)<BR/><BR/>All this, to help a group of murderous Muslims fight off a group of murderous Serbs. Whee.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-37122845718530530762007-12-05T01:58:00.000-06:002007-12-05T01:58:00.000-06:00"Patriotic" C-fudd defends Nazi Germany declaring ..."Patriotic" C-fudd defends Nazi Germany declaring war on the US,<BR/>then "calls out" Freder as an "enemy sympathizer". Way to make yourself look good, douchebag. Jews have survived for 4000 years because their enemies are invariably misfucks and born losers like C-fudd.Gary Rosenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00338791760274457388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59958505628527784652007-12-05T01:16:00.000-06:002007-12-05T01:16:00.000-06:00I know NATO made the case that the war threatened ...<I>I know NATO made the case that the war threatened the region but then again, that certainly isn't what the charter stipulates.</I><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't dismiss the significance of the Kosovo War. Remember, World War I was started by one Serb with a revolver.former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-63040578670052444632007-12-05T01:11:00.001-06:002007-12-05T01:11:00.001-06:00Hoosier Daddy said... Well the one thing that make...<I>Hoosier Daddy said... <BR/>Well the one thing that makes me wonder about the NIE report is whether or not Britain, France or Germany’s intelligence agencies come to the same conclusions. I would have thought that if any one of them had doubts, they would have made them known rather than continue trying negotiations for the last 3 years.</I><BR/><BR/>They don't have doubts in that they all have come to believe that Iran's enrichment program is for weapons material, not peaceful nuke power. They believe this because yet another multi-billion enrichment program makes no economic sense, and would not make Iran autonomous of foreign suppliers since they make virtually nothing of the components and consumables used in a modern nuclear power generation plant. They cannot make replacement parts, they have not spent anything of the 3-4 billion needed to fabricate their enriched fuel into high tech zircalloy leak-free fuel assemblys.<BR/><BR/>Mortimer - <I>Iran could obtain and/or generate enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon by 2009, but is unlikely to develop the technological capabilities to make a weapon before 2015.</I><BR/><BR/>You misread. Once they have the fissile weapons grade U-235, they could make a gun-type bomb in a few months. It's basic artillery engineering. What the 6-year delay infers is they will be a while before they develop a missile warhead delivered by ICBM or by accurate MRBM in region. Also the Mullahs seem to have been convinced that use of only a few nukes on NATO or their mortal enemy the Paks would be met not by "proportional response" but by thermonuclear obliteration of most of Persia...<BR/><BR/>What happened in 2003 was not just the US showing it could wipe out an opposing conventional military that made Iran hesitate on their nuke. It was also Libya coming clean and exposing the AQ Khan Network that gave us and the Pakis the smoking gun that AQ was providing bomb designs to Libya, Syria, N Korea, and Iran. Iran knew they were fingered and backed off their bomb work.<BR/><BR/>********************<BR/>Freder - <I> Yeah, that's right, when Justice Jackson went to Nuremburg and demanded that the charges include waging aggressive war, he was a loose cannon advancing the agenda of a cabal of international lawyers, not the U.S. government.<BR/>Hey was he Jewish or just a Jewish stooge? I'm sure Cedarford can fill us in on this.</I><BR/><BR/>Jackson avoided the more blatant appearance of "victors justice" that the Soviets engaged in, but like the Soviets, our war crimes lawyers were heavily Jewish. In fact, Major Thomas Dodd, in a letter, warned Justice Jackson, that with his legal staff 75% Jewish, there was danger of them pursuing Jewish internationalist interests over American interests or the interests of Justice. Dodd, later Senator from CT and father of current Senator Chris Dodd, was wary of such Jewish internationalist lawyers grounded in inter-nation commerce law and many with Communist ties. They had recently had a role in drafting the UN CHarter and it's idealistic bans on all future wars. <BR/>In Germany, they mostly behaved in America's interests as Jackson and their military command (that era's version of JAG) directed.<BR/>The Soviet ones later went on to liquidate the Soviet POWs, liquidate class enemies in East Europe, and set up "organs of state security" in occupied East Europe - so Dodd's wariness was justified, just on the wrong set of lawyers.<BR/> <BR/>Though the Germans were barred by the victors from defending themselves on charges of aggessive war, the Yale Avalon Project shows thay had excellent causus belli for their basis of declaring war against the Soviet Union (Communist treachery repeatedly breaching the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact) and America (blatant violations of Neutrality). And the UK and France declared war on them over the friction of the Germans and their latter "dear Soviet comrade allies" agreeing to invade and carve up Poland.<BR/><BR/>Jackson did err in not working to more narrowly define agressive war against what the international lawyers thought it should be. Jackson believed it was to take and own territory or resources from a peaceful people. The Internationalists wanted it to be any infringement of another nation's sovereignity no matter what the provocation short of actual attack - because they believed that the UN and Law would adeptly adjudicate issues short of war to "the world's satisfaction".<BR/><BR/>Thus Lefties counted too much on the UN and "law" to restrain barbarous people or nation given their ineffectual "teeth". And consider common sense interventions by the US to save people (Grenada) or property (Dominican Republic) or ally (Kuwait) as "aggressive war" when we should just do endless diplomacy...while loyally remaining silent when their friends like China or VIetnam invade and rule Tibet, Laos, Cambodia...<BR/><BR/>********************<BR/><BR/><I>They have willing tools like Alpha and Freder in their enemies nations to argue against fighting them at all,</I><BR/><BR/>I've called out Freder on being an obvious traitor and enemy sympathizer. <BR/><BR/>Alpha liberal, no, but he seems to be really disappointed we were not defeated in Iraq, and has crawled further out on the Lefty limb of "post-marxist faith-based arguments" on why we would easily lose to Iran, Iran is good, Bush is bad, "the more terrorists you kill the more you create", nonsense.<BR/>He does seem to be edging closer to Freder, though.Cedarfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00602418702398818596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28298584849943811292007-12-05T01:11:00.000-06:002007-12-05T01:11:00.000-06:00twist themselves into pretzels justifying an war a...<I>twist themselves into pretzels justifying an war against Serbia that had zero threat to the US, no UN authorization and no Congressional approval. </I><BR/><BR/>The US had obligations for the defense of Europe under the NATO Treaty. The NATO treaty was approved by the Senate in a vote of 82 to 13 on July 21, 1949. A vote of the NATO membership considered the existing war in Kosovo a threat to the peace of Europe. Unless Hoosier Daddy advocates that the US shirk its treaty obligations, I don't see what choice we had. The NATO member state most directly affected was of course Greece.<BR/><BR/>In contrast, there was no war in Iraq until we invaded it. We did not invade it pursuant to any treaty obligation, only to distract the minds of Americans from the US's inability to track down one terrorist mastermind, a bearded man on dialysis, a member of the Bin Laden family, long-time friends of the Bushes.former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-5863579208763943042007-12-04T22:21:00.000-06:002007-12-04T22:21:00.000-06:00Complaining about lack of 'imminent threats', no U...<I>Complaining about lack of 'imminent threats', no UN authorization and legalities gets tiresome.</I><BR/><BR/>I bet. I would too if I had to keep explaining that Howler.garage mahalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06485491995866513686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-8817586116945075322007-12-04T22:17:00.000-06:002007-12-04T22:17:00.000-06:00I'm the one who made the original comment on this ...I'm the one who made the original comment on this thread about our illegal invasion of Iraq, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that Clinton committed a war crime in taking us into Kosovo. I frankly don't know enough about the details of what happened to assert it was a war crime, because I wasn't paying close attention at the time, but I don't reject the idea that it was a war crime...as I said, Clinton's bombing sorties in Iraq were criminal acts. I am a registered Democrat--although their collaboration with the Republicans in the rape of our Republic disgusts me, and I may leave the party to become an independent--but I don't care whether the President is Democrat or Republican--an illegal use of military power is still illegal.<BR/><BR/>I'll see what I can learn about our involvement in Kosovo and see what I think about it...however, I have seen references to Clinton's war crimes in Kosovo on Counterpunch, a progressive, or even leftist, website, so don't assume Clinton gets a free ride from the left.Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66744136356738118682007-12-04T21:59:00.000-06:002007-12-04T21:59:00.000-06:00My point over Kosovo is that many like to hammer t...<I>My point over Kosovo is that many like to hammer that Iraq was illegal yet twist themselves into pretzels justifying an war against Serbia that had zero threat to the US, no UN authorization and no Congressional approval. The only difference is it was done under a President they approve of.</I><BR/><BR/>I think you shall find that not many liberals/democrats/Clinton supporters really give a rip. They'll defend the war against attacks coming from supporters of the Communist regime, but overall most people don't understand the details and aren't strongly tied to it in terms of identity politics.<BR/><BR/>This is quite a different case with Republicans and Iraq, where they fear having to admit they were wrong.The Other Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17231574013362220942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17913277870725831582007-12-04T21:25:00.000-06:002007-12-04T21:25:00.000-06:00hoosier daddy, there are arguments to be made unde...<I>hoosier daddy, there are arguments to be made under the NATO charter, i believe one was that the refugee crisis endangered the security/integrity of the region</I><BR/><BR/>That's pretty weak don't you think? Considering that the vast majority were fleeing to Macedonia. I know NATO made the case that the war threatened the region but then again, that certainly isn't what the charter stipulates.<BR/><BR/>Then again using that logic, I could plausibly argue that 15-20 <I>million</I> illegal immigrants flooding across our borders endangers the security and integrity of this country thereby justifying us closing the borders and/or enforcing a buffer zone. <BR/><BR/>My point over Kosovo is that many like to hammer that Iraq was illegal yet twist themselves into pretzels justifying an war against Serbia that had zero threat to the US, no UN authorization and no Congressional approval. The only difference is it was done under a President they approve of.<BR/><BR/>Opposition to the Iraq war is fine with me. I only ask form some consistency. Complaining about lack of 'imminent threats', no UN authorization and legalities gets tiresome.Hoosier Daddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12872965118921894534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-52762272620254279442007-12-04T20:27:00.000-06:002007-12-04T20:27:00.000-06:00Freder said...The rules are pretty simple, defensi...<I>Freder said...<BR/><BR/>The rules are pretty simple, defensive, preemptive, and wars to stop an ongoing genocide are justified.</I><BR/><BR/>well that's just wrong. under the UN charter, only wars in 1) self defense, or 2) with the UN Security Council authorization can be legally pursued. the intervention in Kosovo had neither. therefore, under the UN Charter, it was illegal.<BR/><BR/>however, scholars tend to think the Security Council gave the intervention retroactive legitimacy through ratification measures.The Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-19529075126999080982007-12-04T20:25:00.000-06:002007-12-04T20:25:00.000-06:00hoosier daddy, there are arguments to be made unde...hoosier daddy, there are arguments to be made under the NATO charter, i believe one was that the refugee crisis endangered the security/integrity of the regionThe Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-20731789013950435892007-12-04T20:17:00.000-06:002007-12-04T20:17:00.000-06:00The NIE report is just a dopey parsing of hairs de...<I>The NIE report is just a dopey parsing of hairs designed to allow the left in this country to pounce of something that is meaningless.</I><BR/><BR/>lordy, this is dumb.The Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-45283051657877801812007-12-04T19:42:00.000-06:002007-12-04T19:42:00.000-06:00The Israelis don't believe it:http://news.yahoo.co...The Israelis don't believe it:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20071204/wl_mcclatchy/2773393" REL="nofollow">http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20071204/wl_mcclatchy/2773393</A>Eli Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00792743206074537073noreply@blogger.com