Lt. Watada begins his trial today
Best of luck to this brave solider that had the courage to question this illegal invasion of Iraq.. much Mahalos!
posted by Bird @ 11:43 PM
5 comments
The Bird Spot
"In everyone's life, at some time, our inner fire goes out. It is then burst into flame by an encounter with another human being. We should all be thankful for those people who rekindle the inner spirit." -Albert Schweitzer
Monday, February 05, 2007
Click A Flag to Translate
Read the daily Sylvia comic
|
Improve Your Vocabulary And Help Feed The World
|
Previous Posts
- After years of neglect, the place needs work :)
- Well, today we move into the apartment!
- Happy Anniversary Matt & Julie :)
- I need some caffine :D
- What is that phrase about fashion trends on the ru...
- Wow, I missed this one!
- So much for launching rockets at sea :(
- FOX NEWS has hit a new low :(
- Well, Vista is out finally!
- Would have been nice to be in D.C. this weekend :)
 moon phase info |
Feed the fish (Click on water)
5 Comments:
It's about time that justice is done. What an embarrassment to the people of Hawaii, and our wonderful country. I predict four years hard labor for this coward rat.
Thomas
Oh, yes, the war is legal based on the senate vote and the UN.
Thomas,
Technically, we ignored the UN (hence the concept of unilateral) and there is the whole idea of misrepresentation of the facts to Congress, which brings any legality into serious question. I guess I would not be stumping about the legality per se of what the U.S. has done in Iraq.
I do find it interesting that we are beginning to have all of these “conscientious objectors” (or, they just do not want to be deployed for the 4th time, etc.) based on the fact that we have a voluntary military service. This is after all a job that the signed up to do and get paid for.
Basically the concept of one is "unilateral" but by involving other countries like Nicaragua, Spain, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Philippines, Thailand, New Zealand,Tonga, Portugal, Netherlands, Hungary, Singapore, Norway, Ukraine, Japan, Korea, Poland, and Italy. Kind of makes the unilateral statement sound kind of dumb. Maybe the president who made it US policy to remove Saddam from power should be held accountable, but libs would never hold president Clinton responsible. As for the Senate it's their job to hold hearings and vote their conscience. So Hillary didn't do her job as a senator, or is she a war-monger. As for the corrupt UN...they were making money off the suffering of the Iraqi people...enough said.
The moral of the story Lt. Watada is just that a soldier in the US Army and as long
he signed the contract; He to go where he is told to go and do what he is told to do in this legal war.
Thomas,
The concept of this being unilateral is based on the UN Security Counsel, not how many countries we economically strong-armed to “join” the coalition.
The White Hose proudly lists all of the nations joined in the good fight here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030327-10.html .
Do not lump the pacifist Kiwis in there.
What the U.S. did was unilaterally act against the security counsel. Remember “Old Europe” was going to veto any resolution that involved invading the country. Thus, the US acted unilaterally. If you want to throw the UK in go for it, but it still defeats the purpose. The US did not act at the will of the UK. If the US had opted to allow the inspectors more time then the UK would have easily gone along with it.
Here are all the charters if you care to read them. The US right now is hard at work with the “coalition” on 1483. This has nothing to do with the invasion and everything to do with the UN recognizing the US as an occupying power. The UN stopped all resolutions in 2004 when the organization left Iraq.
As far as you looking at this from a legal view point I am not sure you are correct based on the facts. One, we acted against the UN Security Counsel and invaded a sovereign country, which is technically against international law, plus there are a number of other aspects associated with the war that are questionably legally, but that is another matter.
The US does not consider any international law that goes against what it believes legitimate. Thus, you have to look at the actions that the administration presented to Congress. Those actions and facts were misrepresented, so technically the vote was under circumstances that are, at best suspect.
As far as the other comment I guess I am not sure what Clinton has to do with this. But he always seems to come up in partisan warfare, which seems to be the way you are turning.
Yes, there were a lot of Senators that voted for the war based on a misrepresented premise. All the hearings in the world are not going change that. Thus, many of the senators voted on the basis that Iraq had WMD or were close to having them.
I will give you the corruption of the UN, but I am not sure that gives the US a right to act blatantly against it as it did. In that case, just leave the organization. Do not make a mockery of it.
Post a Comment
<< Home