11/20   Keep deleting, and I'll keep restoring, fuckwit.  What are you afraid
        of, anyway?
        Richard Perle admits invasion of Iraq was illegal:
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
        \_ Our wonderful Anonymous MOTD Censor is terrified that there might
           actually be non-technical conversation that would highlight his
           complete lack of real world savvy.  Poor, twisted, socially inept
           thing.
        \_ No.  There is no such thing as international law.  We've been over
           this before.  Laws with no enforcement mechanism are not laws.  They
           are suggestions.  Get over it.  Not interested in your or GW Sr's
           New World Order, thanks.
           \_ I'm curious - why is this rigid debating style of immediate
              dismissal, moral absolutes, and snap judgement so popular?
              It makes you look like an idiot, and makes everyone listening
              or reading just tune out.  The hard right and hard left are
              equally guilty of it.
              \_ It isn't a debating style.  It's a fact.  A law with no
                 enforcement mechanism isn't a law.  If there is no statuatory
                 punshiment associated with a violation of an alleged law,
                 then how can be there a law?  Using my brain and knowing what
                 a law is will only make me look like an idiot to the ignorant.
                 \_ Regardless of the fact that you completely ignored my
                    question, I'll take your bait.  Of course there's a law.
                    The WTO and UN, for instance, both have systems to
                    enforce their rules.  These rules worked pretty well in
                    both the first Gulf War and the US action in Afghanistan.
                    We decided to flagrantly violate them in Iraq because
                    we weren't getting our way.  We can't just pick and choose
                    which laws we choose to follow based on whether we are
                    getting our way in a given situation.  How can we ever
                    expect any other country to take international law
                    seriously if we don't?  International law has got some
                    really important aspects, chief among them the Nuclear
                    Non Proliferation Treaty.  For an even more recent
                    example, look up Bush's decisions on steel and textile
                    tariffs, which are the antithesis of good trade policy
                    and only serve his immediate political gain.
        \_ Bush took an oath to uphold the law of the U.S., not to placate the
           rest of the world.  I didn't agree with the way the Iraq war was
           carried out, but I agree strongly that doing the right thing
           should take precedence over following a European interpretation of
           "law."  [formatd]
            \_ I just find this extremely interesting because in the whole
               build up to the war, they kept saying that the war _was_
               justified under international war via the original UN
               resolution.  No one bought this argument, and now Perle is
               simply admitting that the war was illegal under generally
               accepted terms of international law, not a "European
               interpretation" as you put it.  If the "war on terror" is
               ever to be successful, we need to work with and through
               international bodies, not against them.  Unilateralism and
               projection of military power isn't enough, and probably
               just works against us in the long run.
               \_ I agree that unilateralsim is a bad idea in general
                  and i agree that it was a bad idea in this case.  I just
                  think that there are circumstances in which it would
                  be justified, regardless of international law.
               \_ Richard Perle is not a decision maker.  He is an advisor.
                  Also, do you believe in following any law just because it is
                  a law or do you believe it is ok to violate an unjust law?
                  If you believe the latter, you can't cherry pick which laws
                  are ok to violate and which are not.