We already had that. Techically, its referred to as the “America! Fuck yeah!” Doctrine.
Or, on this board, as the “Big Dog Theory”.
Ahahahahahaha yes, that noted right-wing hive of scum and villainy National Public Radio.
Shut up, idiot. :rolleyes:
Uh, so some of you think we need a “license” to attack another country9. Is there a world DMV for invasions or something?
I think a precedent was set in a place called Nuremberg. The principles and support for that trial were unanimously affirmed by the first General Assembly of the United Nations.
Incidentally, Bush looked at us in the eye and said that he was going to go to the UN go get a vote claiming that we had the right to invade, “no matter what”. IIRC at that time there was a poll from Gallup that showed that Americans were split over launching an attack without the United Nations’ support. With no 2nd vote (the first vote did not give a good justification to invade), then support for the invasion was not even over 50%
Then Bush made the infamous lie that he was going to request the second vote. “No matter what”.
It turned out that he noticed that many allies that were even fighting in Afghanistan with the USA against the Taliban were not going to vote for the Iraq invasion folly, and so, no vote was requested by the coward in chief.
Remember it well, gonna have a showdown, make everybody “put their cards on the table”. IIRC, that was a Friday night, by Monday, he didn’t say it, it never happened, and nobody has any idea what you’re talking about. Surreal.
Well said, well spoken. You’ve certainly advanced your point. Clearly it’s not possible for NPR to have been cowed and influenced by the present state of the media and the attempts to work the refs from the right so as to no longer reflect good, unbiased journalism.
By the way, are they calling torture “torture” yet, or are they still going with “enhanced interrogation techniques”?
So, can you tell me which of these people felt that the situation in March 2003, when inspectors were in Iraq inspecting various facilities, warranted pulling those inspectors out and invading Iraq?
And, I am sure you would be happy to enlighten us as to all of the extraordinary measures that were taken to actually keep the suspected WMDs from falling into the hands of terrorists when we invaded…and why those measures seemed to fail so dramatically in the case of Al Qa’qaa, a weapons facility where it was known for a fact that high-grade conventional explosives suitable for use in nuclear weapons were stored?
This isn’t Gallop, but it’s a poll I’ve cited on this MB about a dozen times to show people how Americans were not at all keen on war with Iraq, and that we were rather prescient about what was really going on. Still, Bush was able to arm twist Congress into approving the AUMF.
Not to forget that at the time he was swearing up, down, and sidewise that he only wanted the resolution as a means to negotiate a peaceful solution, strengthen his hand.
Well, it is considered good form to cook up an excuse first :dubious:
Hell, even Hitler did it, he scammed up a fake attack by Polish troops on a radio station near the border, and then claimed to act in self-defense. Lucky for him he had huge numbers of troops massed for just such an eventuality! Kinda wish I had a internet line to Hell, ask him if he really thought anybody would buy that.
There has been an international consensus for some time that “Because we really want to” is not a sufficient legitimate casus belli. Otherwise, on what grounds could anyone criticize Saddam Hussein’s 1991 invasion of Kuwait?
We can criticize on the grounds that we didn’t like it. That’s all the grounds we need.
Really, you guys are cute with your belief that there is some objective unchanging standard of right and wrong by which one can determine whether one country’s invasion of another was a right or wrong thing to do.
Brainglutton did not say “objective unchanging standard”. He said “international consensus”. Which is a different thing. Of course, you know this, you’re just wearing your “stoopid for the purpose of ideological point-scoring” hat. Feel free to take it off.
But that would be wrong!
So, can you tell me which of these people felt that the situation in March 2003, when inspectors were in Iraq inspecting various facilities, warranted pulling those inspectors out and invading Iraq?
And, I am sure you would be happy to enlighten us as to all of the extraordinary measures that were taken to actually keep the suspected WMDs from falling into the hands of terrorists when we invaded…and why those measures seemed to fail so dramatically in the case of Al Qa’qaa, a weapons facility where it was known for a fact that high-grade conventional explosives suitable for use in nuclear weapons were stored?
I’m going to save everyone the bother. We know they made no effort. They just made a bee-line to the Oil Ministry. The failure to secure 'suspected locations demonstrates clearly they knew there was nothing to find.
As for the Right-Wing mantra of ‘might makes right.’ I hope it stops all their bitching and whining next time a bunch of foreigners has the ‘might’ to pull off another 9/11.