Okay people i guess i am gonna have to bring in some bigger ammo here.

Can't you people open your eyes and realize that you have be
Betrayed,Lied to and most of all responsible for the guilt and shame
that this President has brought upon this great Nation of Ours. What has
war done for us, Let's see war has brought great suffering to people in
a distant land and threatens to engage the world in a perpetual conflict
that no one can win. Bush’s policy of aggressive militarism will lead
only to increasing misery and diversion of the world’s resources to the
military industrial complex that even "President Eisenhower" warned
Americans to control.

Our great nation is being torn apart for war and war profits. The people
of the world are dismayed at the American people for giving over to
militarism by conquering and occupying Iraq. Our own country was once
occupied by a foreign army and mercenary soldiers. The people of the
fledgling United States fought the occupiers by shooting at them from
fields, behind trees, bridges and trees. We consider the resistance of
the Minutemen insurgents patriotic. But the British Throne occupiers
called Washington’s army traitors to the foreign installed government of
George IV.
Now in Iraq, people with rifles are fighting an occupying army equipped
with tanks, helicopters gun ships, bombers and rockets that kill people
to enforce the foreign installed government of George II.

Every one knows that this hideous war is America’s reaction to 9/11. All
Americans remember the feelings of shock and horror they felt on that
fateful day. Those feelings were overtaken by rage, patriotism, and a
demand for victims' justice and revenge for this evil deed.

So, what did our government do they retalliated with a full Hammer
American military might was pounded on the people of Iraq who had
nothing to do with 9/11.

Now, Bring your attention to this and don't take it as a joke. Cause
what you about to read was actual truth taken from one of the 9/11
hearings. The Federal Government held 9/11 hearings and found no link
between Iraq and 9/11. Saudi Arabian dissidents are accused of plotting
9/11. That tragedy was used to justify the turning Iraq into a state of
carnage.

The 9/11 Commission asked everything but the right question, “Who makes
the terrorist enemies for Americans?" This question is so important I am
going to ask it three times. For if the American people can answer that
question honestly we can turn the future from becoming a bottomless
military nightmare of unending war and restricted freedom to becoming a
time of Peace and Hope.

So you want to know that answer don't you. The one who made terrorist
for American are the "Export Weapon Industry".

Secondly, Executive Branch of the United States Government that
authorizes the distribution of military weapons beyond the U.S. borders.
The military-industrial complex created the terrorist enemies by
distributing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons to
dictators like the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega. They
shipped weapons to power factions lead by people like Osama bin Laden
and brutal thugs like the Contras. All around the world, people have
been killed and maimed and had their lives destroyed by weapons that
were made in the United States and exported for financial gain. From
Central and South America to Asia and Africa poor and defenseless people
have been slaughtered by arms made for profit in the USA. America is not
alone in the arms profiteering business. Great Britain, France, China,
Russia, all Permanent Member Nation States of the UN Security Council,
are among the greatest exporters of military weapons that cause great
suffering to the people of the world. This practice of exporting weapons
is immoral and wrong.

and, last The answer is the American People made enemies for themselves
by allowing their government to distribute hundreds of billions of
dollars of weapons around the world, paid for by their tax dollars. It
is a time for major change.
When elected President I pledge to restore the honor of the people of
the United States in the eyes of the people of the world. On the day I
am inaugurated, I will sign an order as Commander in Chief of the United
States Armed Forces that the United States military not transfer or
cooperate in the sale of weapons to any other nation. I will work to
enact legislation banning the export of military arms from the United
States. I will speak at the United Nations and propose a worldwide ban
on the export of weapons. If international organizations can outlaw
whaling to save marine mammals and ban the ivory trade to save
elephants, they can ban the export weapons trade that results in the
slaughter of human beings. This is not much to ask of the United
Nations. It is time for the people of the world to keep the military
industrial complex from destroying any hope of peace for humanity.
When I am elected, the path of peace and hope will be open. I am taking
a stand of conscience here and now. I stand strong and with all my might
I will call out. “Americans offer the world peace. Americans offer the
world peace. …


America should be taking the Nuremberg Principles to heart. Those
precious principles were formulated after World War II to protect the
people of the world from wars of aggression. The Nuremberg Principles
are written on the bricks of a wall of civilization. That wall stands
between human beings and hundreds of millions of historical corpses,
victims of war of aggression. Articles VI and VII of the Nuremberg
Principles make it a "crime against peace and a crime against humanity
to conspire to engage in, wage or be complicit in the waging of a war of
aggression.” The Iraq War is illegal under International Law. Bush
deceived us all by calling his war of aggression a preemptive war.

The Iraq War was sold with lies and deceptions so it is evil in nature.
The Iraq War is illegal under international law. I stand firm on this
point of conscience now.
Here is my stand of conscience and my written promise to the American
people. I am going to sign this now and hold it up for the people of the
world to see. I will show that America offers peace to the world.


Now, since this war has happened we no longer have a privacy life
whether you know it or not....

Federal agents can track every word you say on a phone now and trace
every keystroke of your computer or use of an ATM or credit card. The
Homeland Security Agency could easily implement a system that tracks the
location of you every moment of your life. It seems like a 1984
nightmare, but look how it works against innocent people today. Just ask
Ted Kennedy. He asks with justifiable rage ‘Where is this thing going?”
The freedom of the people is being threatened to protect people from
terrorist enemies that the export weapons industry created.
and, what are we doing well you be the judge of that...

hey...who is that con above me????

First- there's a difference between "betrayal" and "failure".

Second- a lot of your argument, I don't see a problem with in the first
place.

Third- much of it's just innacurate, anyways. Iraq wasn't about 9/11.
Afghanistan (rightfully) was. But Iraq was about some nutjob who kept
being a douchebag. In all fairness- the Iraq war shoulda happened about
midway through the FIRST Clinton administration.

Nurenburg Principle VI:
A crime against peace, in international law, refers to the act of
military invasion as a war crime, specifically referring to starting or
waging war against the integrity, independence, or sovereignty of a
territory or state, or else a military violation of relevant
international treaties, agreements or legally binding assurances.

The definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the
Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter.
This definition would play a part in defining aggression as a war crime.




Definition
No legal authority exists for the definition of the terms "territorial
integrity", "political independence" and "sovereignty". However, their
face value would seem to disclose the following:

a - The "territorial integrity" rule means that it is a crime of
aggression to use armed force with intent permanently to deprive a state
of any part or parts of its territory, not excluding territories for the
foreign affairs of which it is responsible;
b - The "political independence" rule means that it is a crime of
aggression to use armed force with intent to deprive a state of the
entirety of one or more of the prerequisites of statehood, namely:
defined territory, permanent population, constitutionally independent
government and the means of conducting relations with other States;
c - The "sovereignty" rule means that it is a crime of aggression to use
armed force with intent to overthrow the government of a state or to
impede its freedom to act unhindered, as it sees fit, throughout its
jurisdiction.
This definition of the crime of aggression belongs to jus cogens, which
is supreme in the hierarchy of international law and, therefore, it
cannot be modified by, or give way to, any rule of international law but
one of the same rank. An arguable example is any rule imposing a
conflicting obligation to prevent, interdict or vindicate crimes which
also belong to jus cogens, namely aggression itself, crimes against
humanity, genocide, war crimes, slavery, torture and piracy, so that a
war waged consistent with the aim of repressing any of these crimes
might not be illegal where the crime comes within the limit of
proportionality relative to war and its characteristic effects.


Kellogg-Briand Pact
In 1927, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, known as the General Treaty for the
Renunciation of War, said:

The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their
respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of
international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of
national policy in their relations with one another.

Nuremberg Principles
In 1945, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal
defined three categories of crimes, including crimes against peace. This
definition was first used in by Finnish courts to prosecute the
aggressors in the War-responsibility trials in Finland. The principles
were later known as the Nuremberg Principles.

In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace (in
Principle VI.a, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly) as

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression
or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or
assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment
of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
For committing this crime, the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of
persons responsible for starting World War II. One consequence of this
is that nations who are starting an armed conflict must now argue that
they are either exercising the right of self-defense, the right of
collective defense, or - it seems - the enforcement of the criminal law
of jus cogens. It has made formal declaration of war uncommon after
1945.

During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson,
stated:

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international
crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other
war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the
whole.

United Nations Charter
The United Nations Charter says in Article 1:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take
effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats
to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other
breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in
conformity with the principles of justice and international law,
adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which
might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the
principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take
other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
The interdiction of aggressive war was confirmed and broadened by the
United Nations' Charter, which states in article 2, paragraph 4 that

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
Purposes of the United Nations.

Article 33
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to
endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall,
first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional
agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the
parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the
peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make
recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance
with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and
security.

War crimes include violations of established protections of the laws of
war, but also include failures to adhere to norms of procedure and rules
of battle, such as attacking those displaying a flag of truce, or using
that same flag as a ruse of war to mount an attack.

Attacking enemy troops while they are being deployed by way of a
parachute is not a war crime. However, Protocol I, Article 42 of the
Geneva Conventions explicitly forbids attacking parachutists who eject
from damaged airplanes, and surrendering parachutists once landed. [1]

War crimes include such acts as mistreatment of prisoners of war or
civilians. War crimes are sometimes part of instances of mass murder and
genocide though these crimes are more broadly covered under
international humanitarian law described as crimes against humanity.

War crimes are significant in international humanitarian law because it
is an area where international tribunals such as the Nuremberg Trials
have been convened. Recent examples are the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda, which were established by the UN Security Council
acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

Under the Nuremberg Principles, the supreme international crime is that
of commencing a war of aggression, because it is the crime from which
all war crimes follow. The definition of such a crime is planning,
preparing, initiating, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in
violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. Also,
participating in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of
any such act constitutes such a crime.


[edit] International Criminal Court
On July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court, a treaty-based court
located in The Hague, came into being for the prosecution of war crimes
committed on or after that date. However, several nations, most notably
the United States, China, and Israel, have criticized the court, refused
to participate in it or permit the court to have jurisdiction over their
citizens. Note, however, that a citizen of one of the 'objector nations'
could still find himself before the Court if he were accused of
committing war crimes in a country that was a state party, regardless of
the fact that their country of origin was not a signatory.


[edit] Definition
War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International
Criminal Court, which includes:

Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or
health
Torture or inhumane treatment
Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
Taking hostages
The following acts as part of an international conflict:
Directing attacks against civilians
Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
Killing a surrendered combatant
Misusing a flag of truce
Settlement of occupied territory
Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
Using poison weapons
Using civilian shields
Using child soldiers
The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:
Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN
peacekeepers
Taking hostages
Summary execution
Pillage
Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy
However the court only has jurisdiction over these crimes where they are
"part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such
crimes" [2]


[edit] Prominent indictees
To date, the former heads of state and heads of government that have
been charged with war crimes include Karl Dönitz of Germany and Prime
Minister Hideki Tojo of Japan. Former Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milošević was brought to trial for war crimes, but died in custody
before the trial could be concluded in March 11, 2006. Former Liberian
President Charles G. Taylor was also brought to the Hague for charging
war crimes and his trial is provisionally scheduled to begin on April 2,
2007.


[edit] Ambiguity
The Geneva Conventions are a treaty that represent a legal basis for
International Law with regard to conduct of warfare. Not all nations are
signatories to the GC, and as such retain different codes and values
with regard to wartime conduct. Some signatories have routinely violated
the Geneva Conventions in a way which either uses the ambiguities of law
or political maneuvering to sidestep the laws formalities and
principles.

Because the definition of a state of "war" may be debated, the term "war
crime" itself has seen different usage under different systems of
international and military law. It has some degree of application
outside of what some may consider to be a state of "war," but in areas
where conflicts persist enough to constitute social instability.

In determining the legality of acts committed during war, favoritism
toward states that were winners in wars has sometimes been alleged, and
it is sometimes stated: "History is winners' history", since certain
actions perpetrated by states that were the "winners" have not been
ruled as war crimes. Some examples include the Allied destruction of
civilian targets through the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and mass firebombing attacks on Axis cities such as Tokyo,
Kobe, and Dresden in World War II[citation needed]. Others cite the
Indonesian occupation of East Timor between 1976 and 1999.

But, of course, Clinton should have used America's military muscle in
over a dozen choice events during his administration. I have an open
mind. I look to the whole probem. And for the facts that have nothing to
do with the obvious claims.

Oh. And quoting Nuremburg means nothing. Saddam didn't care about that
little document- he violated it like (analogy to horrible for polite
conversation). And we enforced it. That simple.

so what your advocating is for a total dismanteling of the US way of
life. for us to turn into pacifist, let some other culture dictate how
we live, what religion we should have, lets make our women run around in
burka's, listen to the loud speakers five times a day for force prayer
to allah, eat rice and humbus, play soccer, make the 9000 mile
pilgramage to mecca and sing kum bi ya.

sure , yeah- party on man, sign me up

you know, im tired of having to do what other cultures want to be done,
its about damn time we say enough with the stupidity. this is who we
are, you dont like it, tuff tutty- you dont change for me i dont change
for you- get it. and now im supposed to be scared because ive offended
someone from another country, ive made them a terrorist because my
unwavering decision to live. hey well may peace be a monkey- crawling
out their butts.


doc

so what your advocating is for a total dismanteling of the US way of
life. for us to turn into pacifist, let some other culture dictate how
we live, what religion we should have, lets make our women run around in
burka's, listen to the loud speakers five times a day for force prayer
to allah, eat rice and humbus, play soccer, make the 9000 mile
pilgramage to mecca and sing kum bi ya.

sure , yeah- party on man, sign me up

you know, im tired of having to do what other cultures want to be done,
its about damn time we say enough with the stupidity. this is who we
are, you dont like it, tuff tutty- you dont change for me i dont change
for you- get it. and now im supposed to be scared because ive offended
someone from another country, ive made them a terrorist because my
unwavering decision to live. hey well may peace be a monkey- crawling
out their butts.


doc

so what your advocating is for a total dismanteling of the US way of
life. for us to turn into pacifist, let some other culture dictate how
we live, what religion we should have, lets make our women run around in
burka's, listen to the loud speakers five times a day for force prayer
to allah, eat rice and humbus, play soccer, make the 9000 mile
pilgramage to mecca and sing kum bi ya.

sure , yeah- party on man, sign me up

you know, im tired of having to do what other cultures want to be done,
its about damn time we say enough with the stupidity. this is who we
are, you dont like it, tuff tutty- you dont change for me i dont change
for you- get it. and now im supposed to be scared because ive offended
someone from another country, ive made them a terrorist because my
unwavering decision to live. hey well may peace be a monkey- crawling
out their butts.


doc

ShadowEagle.. I agree

not to beat the same drum I have elsewhere but...

if we followed our own constitution and the law inherent in it
we wouldnt be in these messy wars in the first place...the
founding fathers saw involvement in the affairs of other countries
as none of our business....

what we have done in the mideast is illegal...and for those that
claim they are religious..it is immoral and ungodly as well..think
of the dying children...

so what your advocating is for a total dismanteling of the US way of
life. for us to turn into pacifist, let some other culture dictate how
we live, what religion we should have, lets make our women run around in
burka's, listen to the loud speakers five times a day for force prayer
to allah, eat rice and humbus, play soccer, make the 9000 mile
pilgramage to mecca and sing kum bi ya.

sure , yeah- party on man, sign me up

you know, im tired of having to do what other cultures want to be done,
its about damn time we say enough with the stupidity. this is who we
are, you dont like it, tuff tutty- you dont change for me i dont change
for you- get it. and now im supposed to be scared because ive offended
someone from another country, ive made them a terrorist because my
unwavering decision to live. hey well may peace be a monkey- crawling
out their butts.


doc

kum bi ya...........
AMEN armydoc!!!!!

if we followed our own constitution the dismantling of america
wouldnt happen...
the idea that we can beat the rest of the world into submission is
crazy...we've been doing it for centuries..doesnt work..