wolfowitz a legitimate target?

[brad]

wolfowitz a legitimate target? US targeted saddam. or do u think now that US has won militarily that all resistance is 'terrorism'.

[Wake up CALL]

legitimate:

1 a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth <a legitimate child>

Using this definition I do believe he was a legitimate target so I voted yes.

Good poll Brad...........

[Cyrus]

The war in Iraq was far from being legitimate, as far as legitimate wars can exist. We have been through this before: As far as the U.S. was concerned, there was no direct mandate from Congress to the Prez to go to war. The most explicit and direct mandate is required in such a vital process, contrary to what bush supporters and the cowards opposing them have claimed. (Of course, the U.S. has undertaken beligerent action towards dozens of countries post-WWII without the express authority of Congress, but this does not legitimize any of those actions.)

As far as the int'l community is concernce, a nation (the U.S.) has taken it upon itself, unilaterally and outside explicit UN rules, to enforce United Nations' Resolutions, constructing, in the process, illegitimate (in the eyes of the int'l treaties that constitute the U.N.) "coalitions". That nation has gone to war against another nation outside the realm of int'l law -- the rest is simply hot air diversion.

When we understand that the war in Iraq was illegitimate, we could perhaps understand some implications, which we might do well to consider, even now, as theoretical exercises: A bomb planted by Iraqis detonates in Fort Bragg killing hundreds of American soldiers; a bomb planted by same detonates in the offices of a U.S. government agency killing dozens of gov't employees and civilians; an airplane carrying a U.S. officer and civilians is downed by Iraqi bombs/ground fire; etc.

It is interesting to note that, while the above would be ruled completely legitimate by a force superior to the U.S. that would enforce int'l law and treaties to which the US is a signatory (invading Martians perhaps...), now that the "coalition" military forces have been declared as legitimate occupying forces by the United Nations, acts of non-military resistance and of civilian unsubordination could well be completely illegitimate as far as the Geneva Protocols are concerned! In other words, the people who bombed Wolfowitz's hotel could be legitimately shot on sight by Americans.

But it's amusing, no, it's really tragic, to see the pro-war arrogant superpatriots turning desperately to issues of legitimacy, UN sponsorship and financial aid from the dethpicable frogs and krauts, when the body bags start piling up. Ah, the perils of bastard wars.

[brad]

well i just mean zionists say pal. 'should' target military not civilian.

but israelis blow up apt. building 2 kill hamas leader.

[Gamblor]

Because the UN is an impartial governing body.

You can't compare anything Arab nations do to anything the US/Israel does.

Israel is a democratically elected government (even if you assume only Jews have the democratic rights, which again, is false).

Every single Arab state, including the PA, is a dictatorship/regime of some sort, to the highest levels of government, and thus does whatever pleases its leader , not its people.

Apples and Oranges.

[nicky g]

The fact that your own citizens have democratic rights is no excuse for treating other people badly.

[Gamblor]

But the fact that those people call for the destruction of the state is.

[Cyrus]

"You can't compare anything Arab nations do to anything the US/Israel does. Israel is a democratically elected government (even if you assume only Jews have the democratic rights, which is false).
Every single Arab state, including the PA, is a dictatorship/regime of some sort, to the highest levels of government, and thus does whatever pleases its leader , not its people."

Israel grants full civil rights only to Jews. It is a state created by Jews for Jews only. It is an ethnic and religious state. Whatever limited rights other inhabitants of Israel have, they are provided in exactly the same way Whites were granting "civil rights" to Blacks in the old South Africa.

(By the way, Gamblor : If you feel your oats some morning and wanna discuss the close collaboration between Israel and the old apartheid regime of South Africa, we have a date! I'm sure you'd wanna show me it was all Arab propaganda.)

The destiny reserved by Israel for the Palestinians, at best, is the kind of badustans which Blacks had in old S.A., and which "inexplicably" they resented and rioted against and rebelled against, because they wanted uhuru or whatever else them ingrateful niggers were chantin'.

As to Palestinians, they have, remarkably for a nation under occupation and engaged in armed struggle, the best possibly democratic regime under the circumstances -- which somehow renders your argument worthless about Israel facing "undemocratic opposition".

But I like it that you bring the issue of democracy as criterion for peace. Tell me, if tomorrow the United States forces democracy upon all of Israel's neighbors, would you accept then a true peace with Palestinians and granting them what the whole planet, including the US, has defined as a just solution (=a free and independent Palestinian state) ??

...I thought so.

[Gamblor]

Whatever limited rights other inhabitants of Israel have, they are provided in exactly the same way Whites were granting "civil rights" to Blacks in the old South Africa.

The difference between the civil rights of Israeli Arabs and the civil rights of "them ingrateful niggers" in South Africa is as vast as your lack of knowledge regarding Israeli public opinion. If you'll recall, whatever that opinion is, it is still public opinion, not the opinion of a single war-monger bent on keeping his grip on power. Palestinians are foreigners, but Israeli Arabs are not. Don't put them in the same basket.

As to Palestinians, they have, remarkably for a nation under occupation and engaged in armed struggle, the best possibly democratic regime under the circumstances -- which somehow renders your argument worthless about Israel facing "undemocratic opposition".

If the Palestinians, and their leadership especially, are so committed to democracy, where was the big democracy before 1948? Before 1948, they could have had anything they wanted.

But I like it that you bring the issue of democracy as criterion for peace. Tell me, if tomorrow the United States forces democracy upon all of Israel's neighbors, would you accept then a true peace with Palestinians and granting them what the whole planet, including the US, has defined as a just solution (=a free and independent Palestinian state) ??

Throw in severe weapons sanctions and American monitors for Jewish residents there and you have a deal. Access to Jewish religious sites is a must. Well, at least, the ones the Arabs haven't destroyed and vandalized.

By the way, anyone notice the Haram al-Sharif is still standing and protected, even through Israeli rule, despite the fact that it lies on top of the ruins of the holiest place in Judaism?

[J.R.]

Are you Mike Haven, or are you using the Mason picture he displays as well?