say, now that the Iraq invasion and occupation is being openly questioned

[anarch]

by quite a few people I wouldn't have expected it from, at least with regard to the manipulation of intelligence and the whole drumbeat to war prior to the invasion, as well as with respect to getting the hell out of there now...my question is:

Can we bring into the public dialogue the fact that aggressively invading another sovereign nation--and regardless of what the intelligence said or didn't say, this is what happened--is exactly the kind of thing that was outlawed after WWII?

and I quote, from the International Court at Nuremberg:

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

What has happened in Iraq is not a "preventive war", it is an act of bald aggression.

Can we talk about that now?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. I have for three years you know

tothe hague with these idiots!

[anarch]

2. yes...and anybody with any sense and/or knowledge

of international law has agreed...I'm just hoping we may hear about it more publicly sooner than I thought.

It's only a matter of time before it actually does come down to a trial for war crimes and/or crimes against humanity, I think. History will certainly judge the Bush junta as criminals...but I feel freshly encouraged that we may live to see this happen.

[countryjake]

3. How's about we stick it on that Iraqi ballot...

come mid-December, and let the survivors decide!

I can dream, can't I?

END THE OCCUPATION, NOW!

[soothsayer]

4. pre-emptive, schme-emptive. To the Hague with these criminals!