It is a joke to assume citizens enlightened or not have any real power when it comes to things that truly matter.

The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.

Alice Walker

Cute quote but meaningless against the facts stated.

But........

:D Gotta admit I do see the humour in that quote of yours......coming from a EX-Pat

Meaningless according to you.

Meaningless according to you.

Tuu Tong...Since I stated the facts regarding TARP I agree with you Thanks

... justify these illegal wars...

Just to clarify something to the various people around here who keep referring to the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan as illegal. They are not illegal. WMDs or no WMDs, Saddam had violated the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement countless times and that right there is enough to make the war legal. Afghanistan, also perfectly legal due to the country providing a safe haven for al Qaeda and refusing to give them up. Yes, Pashtun custom is to protect the guest but that only explains why, it doesn't excuse them. The custom in America is that if you surprise attack us on our own soil, we will strike back very, very hard. The Japanese tried to kick the US out of the Pacific with it's attack on Pearl Harbour and the result was two atomic bombs and US military bases all over the region. Al Qaeda wanted the "infidel" US out of their holy land (Saudi Arabia) and the result is what you see today. Like it or not, agree or not, that's just the way it is.

I do not justify the killing of innocent people UG.

AlexLahPosted Today, 2010-01-05 21:10:46Again the question if you feel 3000 innocent people where murdered by an act of war (9/11) where the goal might have been the destruction of some symbols of power and as a result there was some collateral damage.

Of course you do and if the US Government trained a terrorist to go to China and blow up 2 buildings full of civilians, I would figure we had it coming - but we didn't.

Again UG I do not agree with killing innocent civilians.

Please look at it from a different perspective, this is the outside the box forum.

The US bombs villages with suspected hide outs of radicals, and as a result some radicals are killed as well as innocent people.

The innocent people that died are called: collateral damage by the US government..

The radicals took down some buildings by using guided missiles (Planes), and the innocent that died are they collateral damage?

Why is it that the people that died on 9/11 are different from the innocent that died as a result of 9/11?

Those wars are illegal because the congress never officially approved them Koheesti.

That is why they are not called wars in official documents.

.

I am aware that you folks can make up justifications for just about anything, but most of them are just not very convincing if one does any research.

Legal Basis for the War in Afghanistan

While the UN Charter contains clear prohibitions on the use of force in most circumstances, two notable exceptions are: 1) the inherent right of self-defense as provided for under Article 51; and, 2) collective action authorized by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII.

In the case of the present US action, the applicability of Article 51 is not entirely clear. First, the inherent right of self-defense requires an "armed attack." Did the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 qualify as an armed attack? Probably so, in my opinion, even though it was carried out not by another nation-state but rather a terrorist group. However, Article 51 also limits the defensive action to such time as "the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

Has the Security Council taken such action? This again is a matter of interpretation, but one can certainly find support for the claim that it has in its resolution of Sept. 12th (link to the full text of the resolution is available on both our home page and Documents Page). This resolution not only condemned the attacks but also called for the perpetrators and those who harbor them to be brought to justice. In addition, it called upon all UN members to cooperate in the suppression of terror. Finally, in the resolution the Security Council "expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist acts of 11, September." The US and UK actions in Afghanistan have met with little resistance in the form of legal objection from other governments. Most noteworthy, NATO even invoked Article 5 of its Charter declaring the attack on the US to be an attack on all NATO members. This reflects strong political support for the action in law and policy. On the other hand, should the conflict continue much longer, or should the US seek to widen the military campaign to another country or countries further Security Council authorization would likely be necessary to fit squarely within the requirements of international law.

http://www.internationallawhelp.com/Forum/messages/60.html

Again UG I do not agree with killing innocent civilians.

I am not saying that you agree with killing innocent civilans, I am saying that people with your politics make up justifications for it.

You folks are pretty much saying it is OK for terrorists to kill absolutely anyone because the US and Israel have killed innocent people during wartime.

I'm sure that Ted Bundy or Charles Manson would understand the logic completely.

The US bombs villages with suspected hide outs of radicals, and as a result some radicals are killed as well as innocent people.

The innocent people that died are called: collateral damage by the US government..

The radicals took down some buildings by using guided missiles (Planes), and the innocent that died are they collateral damage?

Why is it that the people that died on 9/11 are different from the innocent that died as a result of 9/11?

Dead is dead if that's what you mean. Otherwise, the difference is pretty simple and has been explained over and over. The terrorist target civilians and try to kill as many as possible. The US, UK & their allies do not target civilians. Unfortunately for the civilians in these countries, the terrorists prefer to disguise themselves like civilians.

Those wars are illegal because the congress never officially approved them Koheesti.

Senate approves Iraq war resolution

Senate approves Iraq war resolution

From your link

CNN report of how congress approved the resolution for action......

to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

based on this............Again From your linked article...

Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.

( in the end we know the White House was wrong about those weapons & even GWB has said so...yes? )

So based on your link Bush was given authority by Congress & the UN Security to attack if Saddam did not give up the goods....

They ..(Iraq) said more than once ...but we do not have them. The attack continued.

That aside....

Not that the US needs a legal reason to do anything but....perhaps some clarity..... When folks say these wars are illegal what most mean is according to Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution, As such funding these actions is sketchy in their minds.

No war has been declared by the US since WWII

Personally I did not think the US felt the need for such formalities any more. As proven by the long dragged out Viet Nam...errr....action approved by Congress...In the end these newer actions will end the same way or worse & achieve the same non- result.

Perhaps this very same scenario will be used against Iran shortly.....Short memories

Senate approves Iraq war resolution

From your link

CNN report of how congress approved the resolution for action......

to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

based on this............Again From your linked article...

Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.

( in the end we know the White House was wrong about those weapons & even GWB has said so...yes? )

So based on your link Bush was given authority by Congress & the UN Security to attack if Saddam did not give up the goods....

They ..(Iraq) said more than once ...but we do not have them. The attack continued.

That aside....

Not that the US needs a legal reason to do anything but....perhaps some clarity..... When folks say these wars are illegal what most mean is according to Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution, As such funding these actions is sketchy in their minds.

No war has been declared by the US since WWII

Personally I did not think the US felt the need for such formalities any more. As proven by the long dragged out Viet Nam...errr....action approved by Congress...In the end these newer actions will end the same way or worse & achieve the same non- result.

Perhaps this very same scenario will be used against Iran shortly.....Short memories

Again, none of that makes the "war" illegal.

You make it seem like Saddam cooperated with the weapon inspectors. He didn't. What he basically did on more than one occasion in the months leading up to the war was deny the weapon inspectors access until a few days before Hans Blix gave his report to the UN. "Oh, Hans, look! Here are some old shells we had forgotten all about!". So Hans would have some sign of cooperation to include in his report. After the report, Saddam would stop cooperating until a few days before he next report. It was obvious he was playing games to all except, ironically, those he had paid off. He must have thought all those oil-for-food payoffs to France, Germany, Russia and others in the UN would be enough to keep the US & UK of his case. He miscalculated and now he's gone.

Again, none of that makes the "war" illegal.

You make it seem like Saddam cooperated with the weapon inspectors. He didn't. What he basically did on more than one occasion in the months leading up to the war was deny the weapon inspectors access until a few days before Hans Blix gave his report to the UN. "Oh, Hans, look! Here are some old shells we had forgotten all about!". So Hans would have some sign of cooperation to include in his report. After the report, Saddam would stop cooperating until a few days before he next report. It was obvious he was playing games to all except, ironically, those he had paid off. He must have thought all those oil-for-food payoffs to France, Germany, Russia and others in the UN would be enough to keep the US & UK of his case. He miscalculated and now he's gone.

No actually

Let me make myself crystal clear......

I do not assume the US feels the need for legality in most anything they do.

What is good for the goose has never been good for the gander when they were involved.

If the same claims & force were ever directed at the US it would never be tolerated.

But basically your saying this scenario would fly with you.

A person of questionable past is told by a cop to drop the gun...The questionable person replies I do not have a gun...after much back & forth or the 11th hour if you like...... the cop shoots the person assuming he had a gun. He did not.

Who miscalculated? Was it legal in your mind? I guess so.....

It is what it is & I understand that is your position.

I only meant to point out what most folks were referring to when saying Illegal. Again it is based on the constitution for those folks.

Again I hold no such thoughts & see through history here it is what it is.

I am aware that you folks can make up justifications for just about anything, but most of them are just not very convincing if one does any research.

Legal Basis for the War in Afghanistan

While the UN Charter contains clear prohibitions on the use of force in most circumstances, two notable exceptions are: 1) the inherent right of self-defense as provided for under Article 51; and, 2) collective action authorized by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII.

In the case of the present US action, the applicability of Article 51 is not entirely clear. First, the inherent right of self-defense requires an "armed attack." Did the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 qualify as an armed attack? Probably so, in my opinion, even though it was carried out not by another nation-state but rather a terrorist group. However, Article 51 also limits the defensive action to such time as "the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

Has the Security Council taken such action? This again is a matter of interpretation, but one can certainly find support for the claim that it has in its resolution of Sept. 12th (link to the full text of the resolution is available on both our home page and Documents Page). This resolution not only condemned the attacks but also called for the perpetrators and those who harbor them to be brought to justice. In addition, it called upon all UN members to cooperate in the suppression of terror. Finally, in the resolution the Security Council "expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist acts of 11, September." The US and UK actions in Afghanistan have met with little resistance in the form of legal objection from other governments. Most noteworthy, NATO even invoked Article 5 of its Charter declaring the attack on the US to be an attack on all NATO members. This reflects strong political support for the action in law and policy. On the other hand, should the conflict continue much longer, or should the US seek to widen the military campaign to another country or countries further Security Council authorization would likely be necessary to fit squarely within the requirements of international law.

http://www.internationallawhelp.com/Forum/messages/60.html

The UN Security Council is a farce. The US uses international diplomacy outside of the Security Council to ensure any vote will go their way, and uses it's power of vetoe inside the Security Council to ensure no resolution is passed by the council that goes against their way. In effect, The US controls the UN Security Council.

No doubt that power of vetoe is used as leverage; you pass this or we will vetoe that.

As such, any action executed by the US that has UN approval (and in this case it is not very clear approval (sic) ), is not so much "legal" as bullied concession.

Mafia crimelords that bought cops and judges were still criminals, even though a (bought) judge had thrown a case out or ruled in their favour.

There is "technically legal", which is all about the stroke of a pen, (and in the UNSC scenario it is about backroom and outside politics), and then there is "the spirit of the law", which relies on the honest following of what is not neccessarily written but is intended by the law makers.

There is "technically legal", which is all about the stroke of a pen, (and in the UNSC scenario it is about backroom and outside politics), and then there is "the spirit of the law", which relies on the honest following of what is not neccessarily written but is intended by the law makers.

The Arab lobby has bought most of the UN votes against Israel; The whole organization is a joke. However, technically legal is still legal, so you folks are lying - once again -when you claim that the US is fighting "illegal wars".

Again, none of that makes the "war" illegal.

You make it seem like Saddam cooperated with the weapon inspectors. He didn't. What he basically did on more than one occasion in the months leading up to the war was deny the weapon inspectors access until a few days before Hans Blix gave his report to the UN. "Oh, Hans, look! Here are some old shells we had forgotten all about!". So Hans would have some sign of cooperation to include in his report. After the report, Saddam would stop cooperating until a few days before he next report. It was obvious he was playing games to all except, ironically, those he had paid off. He must have thought all those oil-for-food payoffs to France, Germany, Russia and others in the UN would be enough to keep the US & UK of his case. He miscalculated and now he's gone.

No actually

Let me make myself crystal clear......

I do not assume the US feels the need for legality in most anything they do.

What is good for the goose has never been good for the gander when they were involved.

If the same claims & force were ever directed at the US it would never be tolerated.

But basically your saying this scenario would fly with you.

A person of questionable past is told by a cop to drop the gun...The questionable person replies I do not have a gun...after much back & forth or the 11th hour if you like...... the cop shoots the person assuming he had a gun. He did not.

Who miscalculated? Was it legal in your mind? I guess so.....

It is what it is & I understand that is your position.

I only meant to point out what most folks were referring to when saying Illegal. Again it is based on the constitution for those folks.

Again I hold no such thoughts & see through history here it is what it is.

should ad that the perp has his hand in his pocket and points his finger at the cop who assumes it is a gun being pointed at him. so yes the cop is just in pulling the trigger.

The UN Security Council is a farce. The US uses international diplomacy outside of the Security Council to ensure any vote will go their way, and uses it's power of vetoe inside the Security Council to ensure no resolution is passed by the council that goes against their way. In effect, The US controls the UN Security Council.

No doubt that power of vetoe is used as leverage; you pass this or we will vetoe that.

As such, any action executed by the US that has UN approval (and in this case it is not very clear approval (sic) ), is not so much "legal" as bullied concession.

That would be news to Russia and China. They veto or vote against just about everything the US proposes concerning Iran. Syria was on the UNSC for that final resolution against Saddam and they were part of the unanimous decision in favor of it. They probably didn"t know that the US controls them either.

Again UG I do not agree with killing innocent civilians.

I am not saying that you agree with killing innocent civilans, I am saying that people with your politics make up justifications for it.

You folks are pretty much saying it is OK for terrorists to kill absolutely anyone because the US and Israel have killed innocent people during wartime.

I'm sure that Ted Bundy or Charles Manson would understand the logic completely.

= one of the results when not taking the pills the shrink prescribed.

Again UG I do not agree with killing innocent civilians.

I am not saying that you agree with killing innocent civilans, I am saying that people with your politics make up justifications for it.

You folks are pretty much saying it is OK for terrorists to kill absolutely anyone because the US and Israel have killed innocent people during wartime.

I'm sure that Ted Bundy or Charles Manson would understand the logic completely.

= one of the results when not taking the pills the shrink prescribed.

Excuses, excuses, just take the dam_n things!

There is "technically legal", which is all about the stroke of a pen, (and in the UNSC scenario it is about backroom and outside politics), and then there is "the spirit of the law", which relies on the honest following of what is not neccessarily written but is intended by the law makers.

The Arab lobby has bought most of the UN votes against Israel; The whole organization is a joke. However, technically legal is still legal, so you folks are lying - once again -when you claim that the US is fighting "illegal wars".

I'm not so sure the Arab lobby has bought any votes......the Arab lobby has some legitimate concerns about imbalance.

If you hide away from "the spirit of the law" and resort to "technically legal is legal", then you are part of the problem. Get real. Don't ignore the "spirit of the law".

Hiding behind technicalities is just about ink on paper, it's not about real life.

If you hide away from "the spirit of the law" and resort to "technically legal is legal", then you are part of the problem. Get real. Don't ignore the "spirit of the law".

Hiding behind technicalities is just about ink on paper, it's not about real life.

KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) wasn't read his Miranda rights and was denied a speedy trial so technically he should have his case thrown out when he gets to trial in NYC.

We all know that it won't happen. But I have not seen any other proof then his testimony after being waterboarded a couple of times, I guess he got very bored and wanted to stop this rather silly technique of bringing someone to the edge of dying and who else knows what was done.

I find it a bit hard to believe that he only testified being the mastermind after the boarding (as they say). I mean the greatest terrorist attack in history was done and you would not be proud telling your enemies that you organized this?

A 75% hit rate and bringing down buildings that were designed to withstand an airliner hitting them and even bring down a building that was not even hit. They must have some very good engineers working for them.

The mention that terrorist only aim to kill as many as possible, I ask you, were the nukes dropped on Japan not designed for a similar reason?

They could have dropped them (or one) just outside the coastline so that civilians and the already defeated Japanese rulers could see what was up next when they thought of continue the fighting.

The real weapons of mass destruction are being spread on the battle field by using DU munition, a rather silly name for stuff that will cause birth defects for ages to people that had nothing to do with those attacks and to the US and other soldiers that are there for whatever reason.

These radicals were stimulated and trained by the US government when Russia invaded Afghanistan, there is enough evidence for that. They did not care if those radicals were throwing acid in the faces of unveiled women and they still don't do. and the US government does not give a sh1t about how many soldiers or civilians will die as long as the economic interests are served.

I gave a few links to some non fiction books where you can read about this.

And they just try to pull us into this game by government propaganda.

Alex

.

Number one, how many criminals confess to their crime without any duress? Of course Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did not want to admit it.

Number two, the A bomb was used on the enemy during wartime in which the Japanese and Germans were killing plenty of civilians and the allied priority was to save our soldiers. The A bomb saved American lives as the Japanese would never have surrendered otherwise. It is not like blowing up a building of civilians for the heck of it.

Number three, you have done a fine job of trying to justify the killing of innocents by terrorists once again. Johnnie Cochran would be proud of you.

It is legal to wage war. Dr. King said nothing that Hitler did was illegal. You are on the immoral side. No war is ever just. There are only two basic positions for the last 2,600 years concerning warfare: pacifism and the lie that war can ever be divinely righteous. Your position is a damnable lie.

Number one, how many criminals confess to their crime without any duress?

We could get you to admit to being involved with the plotting of 9-11 if we water boarded you. I guarantee it.

It is not like blowing up a building of civilians for the heck of it.

Is that what blow back is called these day? The heck of it?

The real weapons of mass destruction are being spread on the battle field by using DU munition, a rather silly name for stuff that will cause birth defects for ages to people that had nothing to do with those attacks and to the US and other soldiers that are there for whatever reason.

.

Albertini.....

Obama refused to sign the international treaty to ban land mines. He continues to use Depleted Uranium (DU) Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq and Afghanistan that will contaminate the cradle of civilization with radiation poisoning lasting 4.5 billion years, leaving a legacy of cancer, genetic diseases and birth defects for generations to come. More troops, more bombs, more death and destruction.

Obama, though a talented orator, still has that fatal flaw of American arrogance. He sees, or at least talks about the U.S. as the “good guy” waging wars of “necessity” for freedom and democracy.

“In the world as it is,” many people view the U.S. as an imperial power that wages illegal wars of aggression and occupation to serve the financial interests of global corporations. The U.S. empire, far surpassing any empire before it, has over 700 military bases in more than 100 countries.

There are only two basic positions for the last 2,600 years concerning warfare: pacifism and the lie that war can ever be divinely righteous. Your position is a damnable lie.

Maybe, but it is still how the world settles its problems and unless you are sure that you would never defend your own life - you would allow a robber to take your belongings or an enemy to take your life - you are just as much a part of the problem as the rest of us humans and in no position to pretend otherwise.

There are only two basic positions for the last 2,600 years concerning warfare: pacifism and the lie that war can ever be divinely righteous. Your position is a damnable lie.

Maybe, but it is still how the world settles its problems and unless you are sure that you would never defend your own life - you would allow a robber to take your belongings or an enemy to take your life - you are just as much a part of the problem as the rest of us humans and in no position to pretend otherwise.

NO - not in the real world. First of all, as you admit, warfare is morally wrong, evil, unjust. If that is how the world settles things - by hating and killing enemies - I want no part of it. If you wish to take an eye for an eye until the world goes blind, count me out. I vote with 2,600 years of Jewish and Christian pacifism. Strange - the strictest pacifists speak non-Yiddish German now.

One third of all humans live in countries that got their independence non-violently since 1945. Israel is not on the list. Nor is any country 'liberated' violently.

Of course, lots of non-believers aren't religious. Still, they're as bloody as the violent believers.

It is legal to wage war. Dr. King said nothing that Hitler did was illegal. You are on the immoral side. No war is ever just. There are only two basic positions for the last 2,600 years concerning warfare: pacifism and the lie that war can ever be divinely righteous. Your position is a damnable lie.

By the way, I never remotely hinted that war is "divinely righteous". I'm not sure where that came from, but, unfortunately it is sometimes a neccesity as is self defence in daily life.

Again, if you could resist your survival instinct and allow someone to kill you rather than striking back, then perhaps you have evolved past the rest of us. However, if you had you probably would not be choosing sides in our little disagreement here, as neither side is interested in turning the other cheek.

It is legal to wage war. Dr. King said nothing that Hitler did was illegal. You are on the immoral side. No war is ever just. There are only two basic positions for the last 2,600 years concerning warfare: pacifism and the lie that war can ever be divinely righteous. Your position is a damnable lie.

By the way, I never remotely hinted that war is "divinely righteous". I'm not sure where that came from, but, unfortunately it is sometimes a neccesity as is self defence in daily life.

Again, if you could resist your survival instinct and allow someone to kill you rather than striking back, then perhaps you have evolved past the rest of us. However, if you had you probably would not be choosing sides in our little disagreement here, as neither side is interested in turning the other cheek.

There are only two theories of the morality of warfare in Western history since about 600 BCE. Pacifism, and divinely righteous warfare. That second choice is what you learned, and it's morally bankrupt. Agnostics and atheists often agree with the Quakers and Amish. I am not on either side of Saul killing his hundreds and David killing his thousands. AFAIK, both sides differ only as to whose mother or sister they'd "have to kill because the Devil made me do it.

'

.

The mention that terrorist only aim to kill as many as possible, I ask you, were the nukes dropped on Japan not designed for a similar reason?

The atomic bombs weren't the most horrific of weapons used in WWII. The allied fire-bombing of cities such as Dresden and Tokyo were pretty nasty. But it all could have been avoided if the Axis powers decided against starting the war.

They could have dropped them (or one) just outside the coastline so that civilians and the already defeated Japanese rulers could see what was up next when they thought of continue the fighting.

I can 100% guarantee beyond the shadow of any doubt whatsoever that dropping the atomic bomb off the coastline would not have resulted in a Japanese surrender. Dropping one (of I think only 3 available at the time) onto a city killing approx. 100,000 instantly didn't result in a surrender on Aug 6th. On Aug 8th Soviets declare war on Japan. On Aug 9th 2nd atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki - only then did the Japanese seek peace. So it is foolish to think that making a big splash off the coastline would have done the trick.