My blog contains a large number of posts. A few are included in various other publications, or as attached stories and chronicles in my emails; many more are found on loose leaves, while some are written carelessly in margins and blank spaces of my notebooks. Of the last sort most are nonsense, now often unintelligible even when legible, or half-remembered fragments. Enjoy responsibly.

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Please tell me where I am wrong with this seemingly inescapable logic on the Iraq situation?

1. If there was no WMDs then there was no immediate threat to the US
2. If there was no immediate threat to the US, then there was no justification under both international law and our own president’s statements *
3. If there was no justification under both international law and our president’s own statements, then it was illegal
4. If it was illegal then it was a war crime **
5. If it was a war crime, then those who ordered it are war criminals

* "They have WMD. If they didn’t we wouldn’t have any right to invade" March 2002 So even under our presidents own admission, this war was done illegally
** war crime n. means an act or omission that is committed during an international armed conflict, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission, and that, at that time and in that place, constitutes a contravention of the customary international law or conventional international law applicable in international armed conflict.

Also,

I am not for bringing the president up on war crimes, but the evidence is seems to be fairly clear that the simple progression of inescapable logic listed above is accurate.

Please also don’t get into whether or not invading Iraq was a good thing. We’ve obviously lost that war as we are about to pull out as they are falling into a what will be a long, nasty civil war that will end (as their history shows, time and time again) with yet another leader like Saddam finally winning over one side or the other. All of that is pretty cut and dry at this point. It’s the buildup and justification to classification of war criminals that I hope for someone to shed light on.

2 comments:

Danielle H said...

hello. i agree with you that there were no wmds found in iraq. however, it does not mean that they did not in fact exist. Satellite proof and documents found in Iraq (after the invasion) give significant evidence that they wmd's existed and were possibly moved to syria by means of jetliners and iraqi convoys. how are we considered war criminals when we attacked a country whos leader trained al qaeda terrorists who were responsible for carrying out the 9/11 attacks? wouldnt that make them war criminals?

respectfully, danielle

Brian Hamilton said...

Thank you for the respectful comment. I also have this posted on Yahoo Answers and it has raised some criticism there as well.

The answer below is from someone nice enough to do the research to counter the argument. I can take no credit for it, other then removing his insults towards those who disagreed with me.

***

Here is a link with a quote from the White House saying that Iraq does not have WMD:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050112-7.html

Here is a link from the hearings on when the White House admitted that Iraq did not fund terrorism linked to al Qaeda or anyone else substantial:

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/mefford062703.htm

And just in case you… (think that) that they were “moved”, here is a link from Fox News that they were not moved to Syria or anywhere else:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107946,00.html

Here is a number of links from all kinds of sources saying that Iraq is about to start a civil war or already has:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0227/p01s03-woiq.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/23/AR2006022300216.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mood25feb25,0,2529739.story?coll=la-home-headlines
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/weekinreview/26weis.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=7a9a0ce7Q2FlQ2FR)lUQ25Q3CWDQ25Q25VMlMmmQ5ElmMlMQ5ElQ2FRRT6@DR!6RQ2FlMQ5EQ2FR6W5zVks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4741616.stm
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1652025
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113236130033602047-zCx1WvfGIuZvGZJVr_MWVRGcFGE_20061118.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Even Military.com has said that it has started:

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,88803,00.html

Fox News is already saying that the Civil War is a good thing (God bless them for trying so hard):

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602240003

Look, we all wanted Iraq to have Democracy and be free. But this didn’t work out, we failed. Iraq will, as Brian said, immediately fall into a long, nasty civil war. They’ve done this exact thing for centuries and will do it again now. I’m sorry, but we royally messed this one up.

***
The rest was just unnecessary insults, but the information and research is excellent and seems to prove a number of valid points. We were mislead by people who were obvious to selective with what information that they received and are paying the price for it now.