Bush & Blair could face charges for illegal war.

Law professor says Blair & Bush could be prosecuted in the future.

news.bbc.co.uk...

If you want to get technical, the first Gulf War never ended.. There was a truce based on disarmament not a peace treaty. So we'd just be continuing an already started war, not starting a new one.

...But the main reason that the US fought the "first" Gulf War was to get Sodamn Insane out of Kuwait & chased back to his own country...It was an act of defense against Insane's military invasion. That goal was accomplished & stands well within the boundries of the UN Charter.

Currently though, Iraq's military has not begun any kind of invasion nor has his atrocities against his own people been a problem that has *crossed his borders*...He does *not* have the military capability to strike the US without risking direct NATO attack.

Therefore, I agree that the UN *must* clarify the terms of their earlier resolutions before Bush can *legally* war on Iraq. This also means that, without such *legal* backing, Bush should stand the risk of arrest for UN trial if he goes ahead without UN approval.

As much as I'd like to see Sodamn Insane ousted, it should still be done *legally* to avoid getting the US on the wrong side of the *rest of the world*, the way Hitler did for starting WWII. I have no desire to be on the wrong side of WWIII, with the US being seen as no better than becoming the "Fourth Reich"...Supporting such a Fourth Reich should not even be an attitude coming from a US patriot.

Good point, and I agree I want this done by what is internationally considered legal. But when it comes right down to it, I don't care about other countries when they get in the way of us doing something to protect ourselves.

Such an authority would imply that only the UN had the right to wage war. That is not the function of the UN if it were the world would have only one flag.

Taking into consideration the last 50 years with respect to NATO and Warsaw Pact. It is apparent that with respect to the UN conflicts have been fought despite the Veto authority of the respective nations.

Nazi Germany committed acts of Genocide and to be honest nothing is more deplorable. No leader who commits such acts should remain in power. To treat same as tolerable under any circumstances is to support
a Nazi mentality. It sets a precedence is respect to how nations would respond in the future if such acts occur again. The fundamental purpose of the UN is to address such issues, if those issues are not addressed or are in some way trivialized. Than in the end it is the common man who will suffer is apparent.

What at present is being sugested is that a person (any person). Who gets to the level of control that he is assigned the title of leader of a country and while under that position, commits and atrocity. He gets a second chance under the condition he is prepared to undergo weapons inspections. And this in only if he applies what fall under the definition of WMD. If he applies in the commitment of his atrocity conventional weaponry theoretically there is no consequence.

In the end what this war is about is the same issues the US has fought throughout it history. This that the rights of leaders should not extend themselves to being labeled Gods.

Any man who makes the first step to bring Bush and the US Government to World Court will be assassinated, just like they did Malcolm X when he was going to bring the United States infront of the United Nations.

I agree Illmatic67...that person/group would live a very short life indeed.

The most concerning thing however, is that a special assassin/squad probably wouldn't even require mobilisation...there are enough zealots within the American population...and certainly enough firepower available to them.



Peace,
ALIEN

What stopped the military action against Hussein the first time was the agreement by the Iraqi government to abide by certain things, none of which they have met. Reason enough to proceed with finishing the job, nevermind the safety of the U.S.