If There Are No Weapons of Mass Destruction?

tw -you are taking the response out of context.The question was



My answer was, with tongue in cheek, only losers get tried for war crimes. I did not say all losers get tried for war crimes. And of course winners never do.
Someone wrote


To which I added " losing a war is"

About Mislosevic: if Yugoslavia did not lose the war to NATO, he would not be tried in Hague, it is more likely that the court in Belgrade would try his Albanian opponents (if they are captured alive).

steissd
My point exactly

Completely agree. Therefore I prefer to see Saddam tried and not President Bush.

Very true, dyslexia, very true!
However, there might be a difference between good sound reasons and reasons that sound good.

A bit of research reveals the following:

"The issue of the legality of the resort to the use of armed force is not part of the laws of armed conflicts but part of UN law which recognizes only two legitimate cases for using armed force: self-defense, either individually or collectively (Article 51 UN Charter) and military force approved by a resolution acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. "

Ergo, if we attack Iraq without UN sanction and find no WMDs, it would be difficult to argue self-defense-- something on the order of claiming self-defense for shooting one's neighbor (and a number of innocent bystanders) because you mistakenly thought he had a gun and might be inclined to use it on you.

I don't know that this conduct as outlined would legally constitute a "war crime" per se, but it certainly appears to violate the UN Charter.

Frankly, I believe that even if absolutely no WMDs actually exist, some will miraculously be "found" anyway.

Allied military efforts to disarm Saddam are sanctioned under Resolution 1441. If the UN was decided to wimp out, then they would need to pass another resolution forbidding military action taken in support of its earlier clear mandate.

Actually as the time dwindles down to hours, I expect that there will be a rush to get on the bandwagon. I believe many more agree with the necessity of military action against Saddam than are willing to publically admit it. By publically disavowing the action they mullify the pacifists, and curry favor with the Islamic militants. Privately, they keep their support to the minimum believed necessary to share in the fruits of victory. Oh well. Its a bit of a cliche that Intelligence is a dirty business. Politics is dirtier and far more hypocritical.

We should be very afraid of what will happen in this country, Israel, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia be damned we will suffer more casulties here than anywhere else...unless it ignites WWIII.

I can't believe you all act as though this is anything but a totally immoral act started by an imbecile drunk! This is how the world sees us and for you all to be brainwashed is astonishing. You do know that 'thou shalt not kill' means NO killing do you not? You are mad at al quaida for killing so you want to kill ...very sad very very sad and really unbelievable.

Imbecile drunk? Saddam does not drink, and I do not think that he is an imbecile. He is evil, but not stupid.

I have to weigh in on Zedsquared's side in this. Bush is the worst excuse for a president this nation has produced. He will bully and bluster and probably get his war. But he will never be right, no matter how many people he bullies into accepting his actions.

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people,
who have...a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine
right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the
character and conduct of their rulers."
-John Adams

If you are going to fight this war I want you to know that the world is against you. If you are sending you children to fight this war you are allowing them to murder with impunity in the name of America and they are no better than the Palestinians or el quaida.We are only hearing from the people like bush that feel that killing is okay for us but not for the 'other' side.

The first time I realized that we, as a country, were capable of great evil is when I saw a monk self-emulate himself in South Viet Nam. This monk knew that if the North wins he dies, yet he saw the terror and pain inflicted on the South from it's 'ally' and chose to die by his own hand to show his people that the US is evil and wrong.

We cannot force our beliefs on others any more than we would allow them to force us to give up our rights and way of life. Right now el quaida is poised to attack, when? When we attack a muslim country. If the president is brave enough to stop this we will escape the horror the muslims have planned for us in this country. If he keeps on his cowardly path, a path I remind you that he himself was afraid to take when he was called, then we will see the end of our society as we know it today. One dirty bomb and many attacks on tunnels, bridges and subways are in the works ready to launch. The internet will cease to function, we have seen their last test this past weekend. The guy at the gas station I was at when I heard the first tower was hit thought I was insane when I said there were more on the way they should get every plane out of the sky voluntarily or involuntarily, immediately. He asked me the next day how I knew. Well I read the news, we have terrorists in custody that have told us they planned to do it. What was our leader worried about up until that day, tax cuts for the rich, drilling in the wilderness to sell more oil to the Japanese, and reading to children about the hungry caterpillar.

We are doomed and if this is the first you have heard of this then you need to wake up and get out there and learn what this is all about. The bush's want their oil fields back that sadam took, John Majors wants his oil fields back that sadam took, it's that simple. Please wake up before it's too late, I say if we really have to attack it can be in 6 months as well as tommorrow and we will have lost nothing...please

The sky is not falling, nor is it likely to fall in the nest few weeks.

We have been under attack for a decade, and will be attacked again. Those attacks upon us, upon our citizens at home and abroad can not be totally prevented. However, the vigorous and relentless policies pursued by the Bush administration since 911 has reduced the threat. Al Queda was driven from Afghanistan, deprived of its training facilities, and put on the defensive for the first time. Thousands of would-be terrorists are now dead, or in custody. Terrorist cells have been broken up, and operations foiled. Terrorist leadership must always be looking over their shoulder, and afraid that their operations might be compromised. They have been scattered from one hideout, and now must find a new sponsor.

Iraq is the most dangerous sponsor of terrorism in the Middle-east. Saddam's Iraq is a destablilizing element that threatens it's neighbors, and the movement of oil from the Gulf to Japan and Europe. Iraqi intelligence has supported and is supporting terrorists. Iraqi possession of chemical and biological weapons denied it by the United Nations, is a threat to the peace of the world. No reasonable person believes that Saddam is not doing everything possible to acquire nuclear munitions, that can not be allowed to occur.

Iraq may be an object lesson to those States who provide covert support to terrorists. Iraq will be neutralized. A new and better Iraq can rise from the ashes to become an element for regional stability, but only after the current regime is history. We won't be needing nuclear weapons, nor will the campaign to subdue Saddam take very long. Civilian casualties will be avoided by our forces as much as possible. I expect they have more to fear from Saddam than from our military.

Let it all play out.

How republican of you. Are you enlisting? Did you know they were going to attack with multiple airliners. We need to check what we love. It is not oil, I hope. There are too many other answers , violence is not one of them. We won't being seeing each other for sometime after this happens so I hope you are right, but I doubt it. Again you are saying we should follow a liar, cheat and thief into battle, I guess that is how the Iraqis feel too...

1. I am a Federalist without a living party to belong to. My family has been Democratic since Andrew Jackson. The buffoonary of Clinton and the drift of the Democratic party to the extreme left, caused be to re-register a few years ago. I'm a voting Republican only because there isn't anything better on the current political scene.

2. I have served in the military, but am now only an old retired civil service geezer. My eldest son is a professional Army officer, though he probably will not be posted to the upcoming campaign. I've long been a student of history and war, with special emphasis on American History in the 19th century. I read widely, and have long associations with people intimate with our military and intelligence communities. I know far more than my resume can reveal, but that I'm pretty sure applies to several others commenting here.

3. We are not contemplating using airliners for the upcoming operation. I'll give you five to one on it. We will use overwhelming airpower and aerial bombardment, but using civilian airliners would only un-necessarily complicate an already complex operation.

4. "We won't be seeing one another...." What? Are you planning to come over to Albuquerque for the Western Gathering? You will certainly be welcomed. However, I don't think that's what you mean. Perhaps you are being posted to the region? If so, good luck and good hunting. Do your duty with honor and uphold our Country's values.

5. All politicians are liers, cheats, and sometimes even cowards. That doesn't mean that they can not accomplish great and good things. Though many here seem to take great pleasure in vilifying the Shrub, he really is no worse than the average President that has occupied the White House. To compare our President to Saddam Hussein is ludicrous.

There is no way Iraq equates to the dire threat Bush paints. We knocked that nation flat. We have planes over their air space at will. If Bush had evidence that sector C was being used to produce weapons of mass destruction sector C would be bombed without waiting for a build up for war. We contained Russia and China for decades, but can't contain a two bit dictator that has our knee already upon his throat?

Containing Iraq for a long time may be more costly than solving the problem in several weeks of battle. And time-out may be used by Saddam for improving his combat abilities.

In my opinion, both Bush and Saddam are evil bullies and just plain childish idiots. I truly wish we could just throw them both some boxing gloves, put them in a ring and let them beat the hell out of eachother. Just wishful thinking on my part :-)

We had whole lifetimes of time to contain communism, but not any time at all to contain this little country? Maybe the sky really is falling.

edgarblythe: the sky is not falling, the ground is coming up.