Any Decent Republicans Out There?

Ronny Raygun would be a liberal in todays republican party.

Sorry Brandon, I'm in a bit of a hurry here.

You'll get no argument from me about the evils of Saddam & his regime. Monsters.
Who unfortunately we the West (the US really) armed to the teeth and gave carte blanche to do as he pleased, including using chemical weapons, so long as he was was fighting a proxy war against Iran for us.

Have to go mate, have a good day.

Notice how Farmer avoided the central issue, ECY. He's really not much different than Finn, Brandon or OmSickDave.

Have you called for the impeachment and indictment of G.W Bush, Cheney and their administration for war crimes, for launching an illegal war using false evidence?

" . . . they stampeded the Congress, who, as always, feared for their electoral prospects. "

So it seems Republican indignation is limited to blow jobs.

When are you loony leftists going to let go of this "illegal war" bullshit?

By Marjorie Cohn
Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was every bit as illegal as the invasion of Iraq. Why, then, do so many Americans see it as justifiable?

...

The U.N. Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan. Resolutions 1368 and 1373 condemned the Sept. 11 attacks and ordered the freezing of assets; the criminalizing of terrorist activity; the prevention of the commission of and support for terrorist attacks; and the taking of necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist activity, including the sharing of information. In addition, it urged ratification and enforcement of the international conventions against terrorism.

The invasion of Afghanistan was not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the charter because the attacks on Sept. 11 were criminal attacks, not "armed attacks" by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after Sept. 11, or Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the U.N. General Assembly.

Bush's justification for attacking Afghanistan was that it was harboring Osama bin Laden and training terrorists. Iranians could have made the same argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and he was given safe haven in the United States. The people in Latin American countries whose dictators were trained in torture techniques at the School of the Americas could likewise have attacked the torture training facility in Fort Benning, Ga., under that specious rationale. Those who conspired to hijack airplanes and kill thousands of people on 9/11 are guilty of crimes against humanity. They must be identified and brought to justice in accordance with the law. But retaliation by invading Afghanistan is not the answer and will only lead to the deaths of more of our troops and Afghans.

[I'm sure that you'll read on, Tico, at]

http://www.alternet.org/story/93473/afghanistan%3A_the_other_illegal_war