We hold these Truths to be self-evident...
Laws are meant to be perfectly clear and followed; especially those to save human beings from the scourge of war. The UN Charter are those laws, fortified with treaty status that under the US Constitution puts the Charter equal in authority to US law. The problem is that when political “leadership” of both parties want war, and then engage their propaganda minions in corporate media disclosed in the 1975 Church Senate Committee as “Operation Mockingbird,” Americans can easily be dis-informed. After all, Americans witness few wars and not many of us study the UN Charter to clearly understand lawful and unlawful wars.
In comparison, Americans witness a lot of sports and many study their rules. If during the Super Bowl, a defensive lineman grabbed the ball while the offense was in their huddle, passed it to the free safety at the sidelines who then ran into the endzone, Americans could never be fooled by a propagandist announcer and “referees” that what occurred was a touchdown. We would know the game was rigged and what happened on the field was not even close to legal.
But regarding the mostly-unknown rules for lawful and unlawful war of the UN Charter, Americans’ faith in good government and honest media has been insidiously turned against them to manipulate their payment of taxes and enlistment to fight in wars that are as close to legal as our football example.
The UN Charter has been a public document for 65 years, is written in simple language, and was designed in letter and spirit to be crystal-clear in its provisions to forever end war as a foreign policy option. This fact, like a rule in football, is open to anyone’s verification. As in football when people have just a little experience in understanding the rule, egregious violations become impossible to commit without being caught. However, a well-designed law or rule is worthless if it’s not widely known, not honored, and not enforced.
Leges Sine Moribus VanaeLaws without morals are in vane. – Horace, Book III, ode 24
As an educator in law and government, I’ve developed the following two analogies to help people understand the UN Charter limitations for use of force, and how war with Iraq and potentially Iran are unlawful in Orwellian magnitude.
In the first, I’ll do so with one paragraph of allegorical history, one paragraph of allegorical legal history, one paragraph of legal analysis, and one paragraph concerning Iran. I’ll provide article links after the allegory with the documentation of what’s really happened with the US, Iraq and Iran.
Uncle Sam had a Machiavellian history of 40 years with Saddam; a history that included mutually-agreed political assassinations and business transactions worth billions in profits. Sam supplied material assistance to Saddam in attacking his neighbor, Mahmoud, from 1980-1988 after Mahmoud refused dictatorship from Sam over billions in product profits. Sam had previously unlawfully taken over Mahoud’s business from 1953-1979. After further complex history between Sam and Saddam, Saddam began selling his product for currencies other than Sam’s.
In response, Sam claimed Saddam had deadly weapons with the intent to use them. Saddam had a previous conviction and was forbidden to possess such weapons, but had reneged to be searched after Sam made public statements that “someone” should assassinate Saddam. When Sam threatened to attack Saddam because of his alleged weapons and refusal to be legally searched, Saddam agreed to a full search. While the police were searching Saddam, with no weapons found and when the search was almost complete, Sam shot and killed Saddam.
Sam claims legal self-defense. He explains that the law allows the police to shoot dangerous people with weapons. Sam says that because he had “credible intelligence” Saddam had weapons he was certain to use, Sam was justified in killing Saddam and “making the world a safer place.” The facts that Saddam was being searched by the police, that the police have the authority to do the shooting and not Sam (unless Sam was under imminent threat of Saddam shooting, which Sam admits was not the case), and that the police explicitly reminded Sam that the law between the two of them is a “cease-fire” that only the police have the authority to manage, are all somehow immaterial in Sam’s argument. In fact, Sam insists people like Saddam simply hate freedom.
In 2004, Mahmoud began selling his product for multiple currencies rather than exclusively in Sam’s currency. Sam escalated threatening rhetoric to attack Mahmoud because he claims Mahmoud has secret deadly weapons with the intent to use them. The police regularly search Mahmoud and have never found evidence of any weapon. Sam also says Mahmoud threatens to destroy his friend, Benjamin, to “wipe him off the map.” The source of the accusation is a speech Mahmoud made about Benjamin’s abuses of his neighbor, with the transcript proving Mahmoud made no threat, that Sam apparently is again looking for unlawful control over Mahmoud’s business, and that Sam is obviously lying. Despite the facts, Sam continues his allegations that Mahmoud is dangerous, saying “the clock is ticking,” and the time for talk is coming to an end.
Documentation:
History of Iraq and the US: Iraq WMD evidence: lies, dictatorship, and evil. Part 2
History of Iran and the US: US overthrew Iran's democracy 1953-1979, helped Iraq invade 1980-1988, now US lies for more war
US “evidence” for war with Iraq: Are US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan well-intended mistakes? What we now know from the evidence
The UK Chilcot inquiry explaining the British spin of legal war: Blair admits "legal" basis for Iraq war an Orwellian lie; psychopathic monster then threatens Iran
US lies for more war with Iran: Obama aggresses, media echoes lie Iran threatens to "wipe Israel off the map." Citizen action?
WMD treaty violations and inspection refusal for biological, nuclear, chemical weapons. Iran? No, US
Second analogy, with this article: US Wars of Aggression: cost in money and lives
You live in or near a metropolitan area with a population close to one million people. On September 11, 2001, an explosion kills ten people (the proportion of Americans killed that day). Your mayor, Dick Tator, and media blame “terrorists” who reside in a city from another state and demand extradition. The mayor of Afghan City expresses condolences for the loss of life and asks Dick for evidence of the blamed group’s involvement in the crime. The FBI claim jurisdiction and ask all states to cooperate to discover who committed this crime for their arrest and prosecution. Dick Tator refuses to provide evidence. Instead, he takes the following actions against Afghan City, nearby Tigres City, and Persian City (identical population to your city for comparison purposes):
Invades Afghan City. The attack affects everyone, with approximately 1,000 killed and 5,000 wounded. In proportion, 100 times more Afghans are killed than the 9/11 attacks, completely against FBI jurisdiction and orders, and in complete violation of law.
Invades nearby Tigres City. The attack causes the deaths of 50,000 with nearly a quarter of the population injured. Tigres City had nothing to do with 9/11, and the FBI had expressly ordered a ceasefire from a previous conflict.
Threatens to attack Persian City because their mayor is a threat to peace. The FBI regularly inspects the alleged threat and finds no evidence of the alleged threat. Dick Tator lies about Persian City’s mayor’s statements about the human rights violations of another city as further evidence of Persian City’s threat to peace.
If the above acts took place where we took the law seriously, the first death and injury of Afghan City would have sparked outrage among their residents and immediate demand from federal troops to arrest Dick Tator, stop the attack, and your city’s officials and media would be subject to massive criminal and civil consequences for mass murder.
The UN Charter offers the same protection from harm to nations as local laws protect individuals from murder by a mayor.
This article concludes with the PuppetGov 10-minute video, "Obama’s War Criminals."
Please share this article with all who can benefit. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking under the article title (it’s free). Please use my archive of work to help build a brighter future.
Local perspective: Part of my professional duties as a teacher of economics and government is to produce competent adult citizenry. This includes realization that our nation’s policies and money are managed at a broad community level, and these issues have tremendous local impact. Of course, we all want human beings to be individually successful and enjoy their unique, beautiful and powerful self-expressions. Concurrently, we recognize our commitment to local success is strongly dependent upon the success of the community, and that government policy and economics are drivers.
Our status in early 21st Century human history is that we suffer from a long history in government and money of human interrelationship well-described as vicious antagonism. Governments frequently use war as a foreign policy, despite its illegality and dependent upon public ignorance, with horrific consequences. Economic policy is still created within a “Robber Baron” paradigm to concentrate money to an elite few families. Two examples:
1. National taxes effect you dearly, especially the tax to pay interest on the national debt. This costs the American public over $400 billion every year. This is $4,000 per year for every $50,000 of income. Do the math to understand your household’s tax burden for a monetary policy invented by banks for banks to create our money supply as debt. Your competence in this area contributes to our collective voice to simply shift monetary policy to easily pay the national debt, enjoy full employment, collectively save us over a trillion dollars every year, and finally realize what our brightest American minds have been advocating for centuries beginning with Benjamin Franklin. This would have unprecedented local benefits, and requires collective power to accomplish.
2. Ending poverty everywhere on our planet would cost just 0.7% of our income and save a million children’s lives every month. This human accomplishment will cause unimaginable joy at our local level.
To consider:
"If we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective. No individual can live alone, no nation can live alone and as long as we try, the more we are going to have war in the world. Now the judgment of God is upon us and we must either learn to live together as brothers or we are all going to perish together as fools."
--Inscription on Dr. Martin Luther King’s statue, Moorehouse College, Atlanta
"The day that hunger is eradicated from the earth, there will be the greatest spiritual explosion the world has ever known. Humanity cannot imagine the joy that will burst into the world on the day of that great revolution." -- poet Federico García Lorca
I appreciate your attention to these facts and encourage your further study and action consistent with your own self-expression. My recommendations:
Policy response: Gandhi and Martin Luther King advocated public understanding of the facts and non-cooperation with evil. I’m among hundreds who advocate:
- Understand the laws of war. These were legislated after WW2 and are crystal-clear that only self-defense, in a narrow legal meaning, can justify war. The current US wars are not even close to being lawful. Those involved with US military, government, and law enforcement have an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution, not “always place the mission first.” To fulfill their oath they must immediately refuse and end all orders associated with unlawful wars and military-related constant violation of treaties.
- End the transfer of trillions of American taxpayer money to banksters and admitted as “lost” by our military. End poverty through global cooperation to achieve the UN Millennium Goals by developed countries investing 0.7% of their income. Support global security through cooperation, dignity, justice, and freedom. Create a US Department of Peace to help.
- Communicate. Trust your unique, beautiful, and powerful self-expression to share as you feel appropriate. Understand that while many people are ready to embrace difficult facts, many are not. Anticipate that you will be attacked and prepare your virtuous response in the spirit of competition, just as you do in other fields.
- Prosecute the war leaders for obvious violation of the letter and spirit of US war laws. Because the crimes are so broad and deep, I recommend Truth and Reconciliation (T&R) to exchange full truth and return of stolen US assets for non-prosecution. This is the most expeditious way to understand and end all unlawful and harmful acts. Those who reject T&R are subject to prosecution.
Comments policy: I welcome questions and comments that are civil and pertain to the article topic. Impolite and impertinent comments will be deleted.
Please consider that I’m among hundreds of writers who have documented our own government’s disclosure of propaganda programs to support their wars. I suspect my articles are under such propagandistic attack from comments that use typical rhetorical fallacies to distract readers from the facts. I invite readers to sharpen their ability to discern such propaganda. They are characterized by a combination of: never addressing the facts, diverting attention through unsubstantiated belief in an alleged expert, irrelevant data, straw-man attack that distorts the facts, ad hominem attack of insults to the messenger, vile comments to repulse readers, and lies of omission and commission.
I will use such comments to point-out the propaganda or delete them at my discretion. Again, all relevant and polite questions, and factually accurate comments are welcome. As a professional educator I’m in agreement with my experience and research: we learn best from multiple perspectives in mutual commitment to understand the facts, see those facts from diverse points-of-view, and consider various policy proposals of what we should do.
For those involved in support of US government-sponsored disinformation, I invite you to consider the quality of human relationships you wish to work toward. National security and a brighter future is not a function of fear, manipulation, and control. Our best security follows cooperation, justice under the law, dignity, and freedom. Working for your best imagined self-expression of virtue may include a unique contribution from the inside of your agency. Public attraction to the stories of Star Wars and the Harry Potter books/movies recognize that our society’s jump to civilized relations for all of us might require support from people within the “dark side” acting as covert agents for building a brighter future. Another option is becoming a whistle-blower; Project Camelot is a popular venue for people in sensitive positions. Ultimately, I recommend a Truth and Reconciliation process to exchange full truth for no prosecution, explained in detail at the link. Please consider the wisdom of your own “Scrooge conversion” to act for the benefit of all humanity rather than your self-proclaimed controlling, manipulating, and loveless “masters.”
“Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.”
Obama and the War Criminals from PuppetGov on Vimeo.
Comments
America is is the leading military superpower on planet sol-3. Additionally, their currency is used as the world-trade currency. Hence, their politicians can do whatever they want and are not bound to any national or international policy. The nearly infinite amount of US$ on this planet allows them to print money whenever it is needed - without risking a severe inflation. And that situation won't change for the next centuries. That are the facts, we have to live with. All other opinions are nothing more than a view through pink goggles.
Ectually Rabbid, you idiot, you must have failed math. The bank of England took full control charging interest for the money loaned (and not what you call "print") to the U.S. starting in 1913.
Carl: I have asked you this before, and I still await your answer: in the first scenario you describe, who are the police? If Sam is the USA and Saddam is Iraq et al, who is the police?
Let me give you an analogy as to why all these wars are 100% lawful:
Caesar desires the wealth of Persia. Caesar's legions prepare to invade Persia. Persia screams and declare's Caesar's war illegal. Europa agrees with Persia and also screams at Caesar, but Europa has no legions to send to aid Persia. Persia is destroyed anyway.
Such is the way of the world.
I enjoyed the article greatly!
UN charter. The wars are illegal under the U.S. Constitution. (Immoral too!) They were not declared under our Constitution,but under a statute passed by congress. In a few months the un is preparing to foist a treaty on us that will attempt to disarm the American people! To hell with the un and it's charter. If you know your hidden history you know the un was put together by the NWO boys as part of their scheme for world government. The same people who gave us the state of Israel and the incessant wars and boom and bust economic cycles.
Eugene:
And I answer that question in nearly every article, including this one, but here you go: the UN Charter is a treaty whereby the UN Security Council has jurisdiction over use of force except under narrow definition of armed attack by another nation’s government until the Security Council acts.
Your analogy is false because it’s missing Caesar subjugating imperialistic evil to the terms of a treaty whereby he surrenders war as a foreign policy option.
“Such is the way of the world”??? Go surrender to tyrants, Eugene. Bow to them. Kiss their ringed fingers and promise them your slavery.
Those millions who stand for unalienable rights and what our forefathers won in our Constitution and UN Charter to end wars of choice reject your choice to surrender to tyrants. I recommend readers consider the wisdom of our forefathers in my article: "ENDING US Wars of Aggression: advice from our forefathers"
No, Herman, you do NOT answer Eugene's question.
Claiming the City Council has the authority means nothing if they have not created, funded, equipped, trained and fielded a police force.
Where's that Security Council police force? And how can it be used whan any single city councilman can veto it?
Carl: I am making here the very real point that the UN cannot be the "police" in your scenario. They have no ability to enforce the laws that they declare. A police force has the very real physical ability to enforce the law.
My analogy still stands, you are just missing it's simplicity. If you would like, I can re-write it:
Caesar readies his legions to invade Persia. Europa does not want Caesar to invade Persia, but has no legions of its own to oppose him. Europa creates a treaty which Caesar signs "giving up war as a foriegn policy option." Caesar invades Persia anyway. Europa holds up it's treaty and yells and points to it, but has no strength to oppose Caesar and he ignores them.
All survival and all "human rights" are predicated upon the aggressive use of force. If you think I'm "submitting to tyrants" you are wrong - I am accepting the world as it is. You are the one who has invented magic documents that can stop armies from marching on their own.
Cont: Do you two have any advice other than submission to the dictates of the unlawful wars as an expression of “accepting the world as it is”? NOTE: ANSWER THIS QUESTION OR RISK DELETION OF FURTHER DISTRACTING COMMENTS. Either support existing law, declare yourself in favor of current dictates with whatever excuse you want to whine about, or PROPOSE A COURSE OF ACTION. You waste our time with unproductive blather crying about what can’t be done. I assume you’re fine with the war status, you’re comfortable with its legality (despite your refusal to explain how UNSC 1441 authorizes it in opposition to all 27 UK Foreign Office attorneys, the Dutch government’s unanimous report, the UN Secretary General, and my explanation the issue is self-evident).
Cont: The other option that can happen right now is our own government and military declaring the obvious: the emperor has no “legal clothes” and refuse orders, arrest, and prosecute.
This isn’t magic, Eugene: this is the personal responsibility to hold government within the US Constitution as the Founding Fathers admonished us to do or lose our freedoms to tyrants such as we have today. I’ve posted their highlights in the article: “Ending US Wars of Aggression: advice from our forefathers.” More…
Eugene and wow:
Have you ever read the UN Charter? There is no standing international army, that is correct. What’s missing to end these unlawful wars is a coalition of nations acting officially raising the issue with the UNSC and/or in the General Assembly. So far, and understandably given the “lessons” imposed on Iraq, Afghanistan, and threatened on Iran, as well as the history of CIA-caused coups as described by insiders like John Perkins and disclosed in history as Operation Ajax to illegally overthrow Iran’s democracy from 1953-1979, no nation has yet to dare oppose the US lawless and murderous empire. Raising the issue to the UN Security Council would force the US and UK to put in writing their reasons for what you are probably accurate in predicting as certain veto. The General Assembly can also pressure the UNSC to respond. The only effective outcome from this strategy is to cause public pressure within the US and UK to understand the facts and demand action. More...
The "action" is simple: Get CONGRESS to end it. They authorized it, they have the power of the purse to cut off the funding.
Unfortunately for your position, they also have the collective common sense to at least deal with the reality that exists: a barely stable Iraq that's the result of our military actions - Powell's "You break it, you own it" concept.
For all the things wrong with OIF, simply walking away would be the worst. (Besides being impossible - the logistics of moving troops out is actually more complicated than moving them in.)
As for the Security Council, it's not just the US and UK - every one of the Five Permanent Members has reason to never allow such a resolution to be passed. Neither do nations like Israel, India, Brazil, or most of the undeveloped nations.
It's a pipe dream.
Carl, you said I refuse "to explain how UNSC 1441 authorizes [the wars] in opposition to all 27 UK Foreign Office attorneys, the Dutch government’s unanimous report, the UN Secretary General" etc.
I really think you need to broaden your view to see the simple truth I am driving at. You are hung up on international law, regulation, treaties and all manner of invented, fabricated ephermera. Here is the simple truth: the war is legal because we say it's legal. Period.
There is no military force on this entire planet willing or able to stop us. Legality and morality are human concepts, invented by man - not an outside force. Those who are strong do as they please. This is the veritable way of the world and the highest law of nature. You may not like it, but that's how it works.
Far from "crying" or "whining" about how we cannot do anything and must "surrender to tyrants," I suggest we do the following: end the war as swiftly as possible by achieving absolute victory with (con't)
the application of irresistable and overwhelming force.
Now that I've answered your question, you can answer mine: For what REAL reason should we stop the wars? Not laws - which are invented by man and exist so long as one party has dominance over the other. Not morality or compassion - which are human inventions and vary immensely from culture to culture. I ask you for a real, legitimate reason we should end our wars. I ask you to provide evidence founded in reality, not in documents scribbled by the long dead or treaties conjured up by pontiffs with no ability to enforce them. Ignore all this hocus-pocus about international "law" - which, as I have demonstrated, exists only so long as the strong choose to obey it. Bearing all this in mind, why should we end the wars?
Wow:
Yes, Congress can end the wars at any time through defunding and/or a majority vote of both chambers per the War Powers Resolution. But they do not respect the rule of law under the US treaty with the UN Charter and do as they please. They, too, allow middle linebackers to kick the center in the head, grab the ball, and call it a fumble.
You then argue for the war for us to apparently help Iraq because we “broke it,” strawman a withdrawal argument, and then speak for much of the world in support of the US occupation, or OIL…oops, that was the first acronym. Wonder why they changed it? I invite readers to feel the hypocrisy of wow’s position by reading my article: Reality check: If China "liberated" US like we "liberated" Iraq, here's how we would look.
7 of 7: Therefore, these wars are unlawful. You reject the rule of law as unrealistic, and history supports that law has been rejected time and again, but we differ in our recommendation for current policy. I invite our government and military to embrace unalienable rights and the policy recommendations I enumerate above. You invite surrender to the tyrants and ignore that they only have the ability to act with the cooperation of our government employees and military. The wars of over if a critical mass of our government and soldiers declare the emperor has no legal clothes and stand with the US Constitution rather than with tyrants.
Eugene, I appreciate the opportunity to do what I feel I must: help polarize the choice between our current path of might from dictates/dictatorship, what our American “leader” or Fuhrer in German says is “right,” and what I observe 99% of Americans want in their hearts and minds given the clear choice: competitive competition under law.
6 of 7: But that’s not your or my call, Eugene. I feel strongly that I must clearly communicate exactly what I have: under the US Constitution we honor treaties with equal power as US law. The UN Charter is a treaty. The UN Charter outlaws wars of choice; the only use of force allowed is from the vote of the UNSC or a narrow definition of self-defense that really is comparable to its use if you or I were attacked on the street: we can defend ourselves if attacked or under imminent threat of attack, including use of deadly force when prudent, but when the attack is over and the police step in, retribution is unlawful. The US violated the UN Charter and specific and explicit resolution for cooperation in Afghanistan and a ceasefire in Iraq that only the UNSC could remove, not an individual nation. More…
5 of 7: Finally, Eugene, there is no reason in reality to do anything: what we do is our choice. We are free to act as we choose. While I cannot prove this, my observation is that human beings are attracted to virtue and cooperative competition rather than vicious antagonism. Perhaps 1% are psychopathic and loveless, but the rest of us want cooperation, justice, dignity, and freedom. The people within US government and the military would prefer virtue and, upon reflection, would prefer to support and defend the US Constitution rather than dictatorship of the mighty to crush opposition to US unlawful invasion. More…
4 of 7: The wars have killed over a million human beings, including more US troops than killed from 9/11. The US has devolved to torture; which is the foundation of the government version of 9/11. I suggest that what happened on 9/11 is not reported from the same people who lied in every way imaginable to start these wars and lie for more war with Iran today. To discover the arguments counter to the government version of 9/11, I suggest: “Who are 9/11 Truthers? What is the 9/11 Truth Movement?”
International polls show the US is perceived as the world’s most dangerous nation to peace, Eugene. I’d rather my progeny and I enjoy safe international travel and enjoy our entire planet rather than be a target for revenge. US injustice and rejection of law encourages others to do the same against us. More…
3 of 7: You ask why we should end these wars in practical terms, not moral. Ok: if we had followed UNSC resolutions and cooperated under law to share intelligence, cooperate to discover the perpetrators, arrest, and prosecute, that approach would have cost us something less than 100 million dollars. I suggest reading the article: “US Wars of Aggression: cost in money and lives” to read the conclusions of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard’s Linda Bilmes conservative study that the long-term costs of the wars so far are $3-$5 TRILLION. This is probably a million times more expensive than if we cooperated under law and so far has cost the average American household $30,000 to $50,000 with no end in sight compared with one dollar per household cost for cooperation, justice, dignity, and freedom. More…
2 of 7: You embrace Wars of Aggression, Eugene, and reject American law and the ideal of limited government under a constitution in exchange for empire. You reject morality as a starting point of creating policy and love; you discount both because of diverse experience and expression instead of encouraging people to maximize their expression and experience of morality and love and enjoy the diversity. This point is huge; I encourage readers to tell the truth that they love the experience and expression of love and go for its maximum expression and use it as a foundation for policy rather than reject it as Eugene suggests. More…
Eugene:
You advocate dictatorship, policy by what is said/dictated by the brutish, rather than what America is by definition: limited government under the Constitution. The US signed a treaty to relinquish Wars of Aggression, our government and military serve under oath to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies. With all respect, Eugene, you are acting as an enemy to the US Constitution.
I agree with you, Eugene: I am “hung-up” by the US Constitution, the very heart of being American. I willingly limit power to respect unalienable rights, and embrace the conservative ideals of my forefathers that still serve us.
You advocate for crushing opposition to our unlawful invasion. Again, readers should consider what we would do if our position were reversed with Iraq; I try to provide this perspective in “Reality check: If China "liberated" US like we "liberated" Iraq, here's how we would look.” More…
You conveniently ignore the logistics of withdrawal - "Out Now!" is impossible; read Pagonis' 'Moving Mountains' for a good explanation of the difficutlies after the much smaller Desert Storm in 1991.
More importantly, you ignore the moral/ethical (and yes, political) question: Having clearly created problems in Iraq, what is the US responsibility for helping correct those problems?
On a final point: "The wars have killed over a million human beings..." - highly unlikely. The Johns Hopkins researchers who came up with those numbers have come under severe criticism for lack of transparency in their research. (I'm being polite here.)
But even taking lower estimates in the 100,000 to 150,000 range, it's an ugly legacy.
But it also plays into that question I posed about what responsibility the US has to the Iraqis.
Cont: The Johns Hopkins study is the only peer-reviewed study; if you want to criticize it that requires a burden of proof of significant explanation that anybody with professional standards recognizes and rejects your testimony as propaganda.
Dare you answer, wow: what would you do if China invaded the US and gave US rhetoric in Iraq to justify their invasion and presence? Again, I suggest readers consider that view and the article I wrote for that consideration.
Wow:
You are a piece of work. Interested readers should note wow’s repeat of a strawman argument nobody is making for ending the unlawful wars. What would be your position if China invaded the US? Would you argue that Chinese invaders have responsibility to stay in the US to “fix what they broke?” Readers should also consider black-ops causing attacks to justify US permanent presence. For example, two British SAS soldiers were arrested in Basra, Iraq in September 2005 for dressing as Arabs and driving around shooting people. They were caught and arrested. Rather than the British government investigating and allowing prosecution for murder, the British military busted them out of prison and then refused comment. More…
Talk about strawman arguments! China? I'd expect there to be a race between our military forces - who, blessed with internal lines of communication would make quick work of any such insanity - and the millions of private gun owners itching to prove the value of the Second Amendment by repelling the invaders.
But I'll point out - AGAIN - that I never thought invading Iraq was justified, so that argument is irrelevant.
My question isn't about 2003 or 2005 - it's about NOW. Given the CURRENT REALITY - what responsibility do you see the US having to the people of Iraq?
As for Johns Hopkins and The Lancet - is that the same peer-review that The Lancet used on the vaccine-autism link study that they've now retracted?
Look a little deeper; a number of critics are poiinting out that JH researchers have not shared their raw deta and details of their methodology.
But as I said, even the lower, verifiable numbers are bad enough.
Wow:
Yes, we’d defend our nation from attack, just as Iraqi men do against our unlawful invasion. We’d want China out immediately and PAY for what they broke. What we owe Iraq and the world is first the truth: we unlawfully invaded and caused tremendous harm. We are liable for those damages and should answer in international court (the US refuses ICJ jurisdiction for just this reason).
The vaccine-autism link is another interesting story, but you propagandize to suggest somehow that excuses your burden of proof for the Iraq death total. Again, professionals dismiss such nonsense as your propaganda, an unfounded claim. People can look at this if they choose, but I will delete your further comments on this distraction from the topic of people understanding the US wars are unlawful when they invest the hour to understand the applicable laws and the ridiculous excuse that UNSC Res. 1441 does anything other than reassert the UNSC jurisdiction of managing the issue, not the US or UK.
So, if I understand you correctly, you would pull out all US (and allied) forces immediately and let the Iraqis deal with the resulting anarchy that understaffed, undertrained and underequipped Iraqi security forces would be unable to control?
You'd let a nascent somewhat democratic government deal with the chaos while some (yet-to-be-designated) international court mulled over the (yet-to-be-filed) damages for years to come?
You would, effectively, sacrifice hundreds of thousands more Iraqis for the 'greater good' of enforcing an unenforcable law? (Who, exactly, is going to force the USG to actually pay these damages? Did the Germans ever pay the Versailles reparations?)
Nope, I think the moral high ground is cleaning up the mess we made - not abandoning them to it.
And that doesn't even consider the long-term strategic issue: The Taliban arose because the US failed to live up to its commitments to help post-Soviet Afghanistan. Do worse in Iraq?
No thanks.
4. Create an international body to deliver the UN Millennium Goals. I worked on these for over 20 years; the solutions are there but we need a committed body to deliver them with individual analysis required for different areas of ending poverty. This is where the US could do some good in areas with security needs. Iraq is broken and we would require the equivalent of hearings in concert with real Iraq leadership to assist their recovery, as one area of need among many around the world. The investment cost for the Millennium goals is about $100 billion a year for roughly ten years; less resource-intensive than current wars and self-sustaining with local education and security.
This side-issue of what to do if the war is to be ended is complete, wow. Your further comments are subject to deletion if I feel they distract from the article topic to understand how the war in Iraq and threatened war in Iran are unlawful.
2. With the facts the US and UK lied to unlawfully invade, work with the UNSC and Iraq leadership that aren’t our puppets (this will require some T&R to determine) to remove our criminal invading forces and supply international security if Iraq leadership requests it. We have evidence that Blackwater/Xe engaged in murder, with probable other Black Ops engaged in fomenting violence. As you failed to acknowledge, two British SAS soldiers were arrested in Basra, Iraq in September 2005 for dressing as Arabs and driving around shooting people. They were caught and arrested. Rather than the British government investigating and allowing prosecution for murder, the British military busted them out of prison and then refused comment.
3. Allow T&R to expose international banking/finance cartels to enact monetary reform. Money and control are drivers of these policies.
Wow:
You propagandize and have no intent of accurately reporting what I recommend:
1. Start with the truth that the war is unlawful and begin a Truth and Reconciliation (T&R) process in the US to get to the whole truth. We know that all the claims made for the war with Iraq were known as false when they were told and current claims for war with Iran are false. See the above linked articles for documentation.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!