Posted by alexandra_k on November 17, 2005, at 16:39:03
In reply to What a Kiwis did for Britain » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on October 27, 2005, at 17:28:49
From a different perspective:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/terrorism/0926znet.htm
Why people might not get a different perspective:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/media/2005/0403mediaown.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2005/0812sadness.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2004/1104torture.htm
I wondered what the 'illegality' claim was about... Apparantly the thought is... The war on Iraq was supposedly lawful because Saddam posed a threat to US and England because of the alleded 'weapons of mass destruction'. But evidence is coming out now that Bush and Blair knew before the war that there were no 'weapons of mass destruction'. So that means... The war wasn't defensive. It was an act of agression. And wars of agression are unlawful.
So...
That is the thought there.
The Nazi's were held accountable because they lost the war.
I wonder whether people will be held accountable this time...
:-(
poster:alexandra_k
thread:570985
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050924/msgs/579732.html