Basic morality and rule of law have been violated by Bush.
In all seriousness, Rich, have you been made aware of basic facts surrounding the war on Iraq?
As a soldier you swore to uphold the Constitution. I would hope that you took that oath sincerely and take it seriously. Unfortunately I think you have been duped into betraying your oath. The cowards way out is to dismiss what I am saying without giving it thought. We are supposed to be a nation of laws and we are supposed to be as good as our word. There are creeps in the media (like Doug Harper) who lie to the public. I think you are a victim of these liars.
Please see Big Media Refuses to Report this Basic Fact: Attacking Iraq Violates International Law and The Iraq War was Illegal Mr. Kamm
"Let's see if I have this straight. As an example I'll say:
I think you need to take off the tinfoil hat and get some facts there, Tom. See, now that was the kind of judgment that Jesus doesn't want us to make. I did not simply disagree with Tom, I denigrated his intelligence by implying he wears a tinfoil hat - which is a common insult meaning the wearer suffers from serious delusions bordering on insanity. However accurate that description may be, it is wrong. That is where absolute morals come in. Because God says "judge not lest ye be judged", we know the hard and fast rule against judging other people - which is not the same as opining on their arguments. However, without God telling me that, I can say "judge not lest ye be judged" is simply a flawed argument. Once I declare my hostility to the directive I can go on and call Tom a tinfoil-hat-wearing loon because I am not bound by another person's flawed argument or assertion. But God has given me that directive against judging, so calling Tom a tinfoil-hat-wearing-loon would be wrong. So I won't do it. I'll simply disagree with his arguments and point out they are fatally flawed by the simple fact that the U.N. had itself threatened "serious consequences" for violations by Iraq of numerous Resolutions. Given 12 years of sanctions, there can only be one definition of "serious consequences" - yep, you guessed it. A curfew and no television for a month. No silly, that was a joke - military intervention is the only "serious consequence" available to the U.N. and the U.S.
My reply to Sean:
You said, " I'll simply disagree with his arguments and point out they are fatally flawed by the simple fact that the U.N. had itself threatened "serious consequences" for violations by Iraq of numerous Resolutions. Given 12 years of sanctions, there can only be one definition of "serious consequences" - yep, you guessed it."
Sean, you should spend less time being a wiseass and more time educating yourself about facts which you are ignorant of. The wording "ALL NECESSARY MEANS" was the wording used in UN Resolution 678 that authorized the Gulf War. The wording "ALL NECESSARY MEANS" was removed from the first draft of UN Resolution 1441 so that it would not be an automatic authorization for war. The words "all necessary means" were replaced "with a much softer line that Iraq will "face serious consequences" after the Security Council has met to "consider the situation"" Resolution 1441 was written without the wording "ALL NECESSARY MEANS" (which is diplomatic language for authorizing use of force) so that it would not be an authorization for war. UN Resolution 1441 not a call for war