ユーザー名: パスワード:
新ユーザー登録
管理人: Vikings 
 Politics

Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.


All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..

As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.

Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!


*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."


掲示板表
モード: 誰でも投稿可能
メールの内容の検索:  

25. 1月 2009, 05:12:35
coan.net 
件名: Re:
Artful Dodger: Well I'm not sure how the Clinton administration could be blamed when they did not act upon it.

So question - is Hitler a war criminal? I mean he acted with the backing of his countries administration & politicians? (like the Bush administration acted with the backing of Congress.) [POINT: Just because someone's own country "backs" killing does not make it right.]

I know bringing this up will bring up how this organization is broken - but I still believe any elective war against another country should be backed by the UN. (not just a group of friendly countries).

Let me back up a minute:

I see 2 types of wars. First is a war that is started in retaliation for an attack. War on terror & invasion of Afghanistan was in retaliation for 9/11. Attack of Japan was in retaliation for Pearl Harbor. War with Germany was in retaliation for them declaring war against the US after Japan started the war with the US.

Second - Elective war. This is a war which is started as a pre-emptive strike. THE ONLY TIME in my eyes that an elective war should be started again is with the backing of the UN - which not just the views of 1 country is taking into account - but the views of many countries.

=======
You ask about the president lying in the statement. Well I don't see that statement as a lie - I mean the attack was ordered - was joined by British forces - used the reasoning for attacking weapons program - was a pre-emtive to protect the US. So no, I don't think the statement you wrote is a lie. I believe many facts were distorted and the facts that did not agree with the war plan were labeled as not reliable - and the Bush administration led many to believe the war in Iraq was part of the war on Terror, where in reality it was a second war.

日時
オンライン友達
気に入り掲示板
同好会
今日のアドバイス
著作権 © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek.
上へ