To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (13001 ) 10/31/2006 8:07:16 PM From: sea_urchin Respond to of 22250 Crimson > The debate on why the US invaded Iraq has been over-sophisticated. The main motive for going to war was that the White House thought it could win such a conflict very easily and to its own great advantage. I wonder why articles such as this never point out that the war was not in fact a war but a crime against humanity and that those responsible are unequivocally war criminals, whether they can be brought to trial or not? By calling it a war Cockburn gives the illegal invasion of a non-belligerent, sovereign state a legitimacy which it does not have.thestar.com >>The real problem is that it is illegal for one country to invade another country, says Linda McQuaig Much has changed in the way the mainstream media deal with the war in Iraq. Most commentators now acknowledge the war is a disaster and will hurt the Republicans badly in the upcoming U.S. midterm elections. But one thing hasn't changed — the willingness to believe that the motives for war, however misguided, were basically honourable. So the criticism centres instead on the Bush administration's inept handling of the war. But incompetence is a side issue. The real problem is, and always has been, that it is illegal — not to mention immoral — for a country to invade another country, in other words, to wage a war of aggression. As the Nuremberg Tribunal concluded after World War II: "War is essentially an evil thing ... To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. "<<