Ok, not the UN, but anyone else? Why have the laws if there is no one to enforce them.

You have just asked the question that international law people have been wrangling over since the Cold War. It is a very good question, by the way.

America and Israel are members of the UN. What you argue as defending freedom, meaning the indisciminate use of force, is contrary to what both America and Israel have agreed as proper standards of conduct.

You cannot believe in freedom when you seek to deny other people's rights, by promoting warfare by any means, with no regard for who is hurt. This is also the reason why Hezbulla's tactics are repulsive.

There are a number of ways that things can happen. In some cases there's a chance that the UN can be the one to act, obviously not with Israel though. The International Criminal Court is slowly getting itself sorted out, but they need to have actual evidence link individuals and then catch them. With the US there's also the small detail that there's a law authorizing the use of force to prevent US military personnel appearing before the court (see the "Hague invasion plan").

Countries can do something, they can limit trade much of the time. Selling WP munitions to countries accused of using the like in war crimes can look bad. Some organizations take these things into account. Recently the Anglican Church sold its investment in the Caterpillar company, because they sell bulldozers to Israel.

It's a long way short of leading all war criminals off to prison in chains, but at least there are pressures which might reduce what is done.

Would that be the same UN that funded the oil for food program and permitted Saddam to plot 9/11 for 12 years? Look, this is war. There is no such thing as "proper standards of conduct." Why don't you show the same outrage at the Islamofascists who decapitate Jews and throw homosexuals off of skyscrapers? I'd say that if the U.S. and Israel are guilty of anything it would be practicing TOO MUCH restraint against all those who support the Islamofascists. We should make it clear that there are exactly two ways to operate in this world - you either give everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, you have to help the U.S. and Israel help fight the Islamofascists, or don't complain when your babies are melted alive by WP when said Islamofascists hang out in your villages. Simple. There is no moral gray area here.

Ok, what I mean is beliveing in the freedom of America and her allies. Sorry to say that there aren't many of those left. The EU, China, Russia, and even teh UK all perfer to cower and appease the Islamofascists while America does all the dirty work. Well, if that's their choice, then don't bitch when we drop cluster bombs and WP on your kids, and when we try to get information out of Islamofascists who are plotting to nuke London and New York, or when our heros blow off some steam by killing Muslim taxi drivers in Iraq (who are probably Islamofascists or their sympathizers in any event).

Again, with the moral equivalences. I'm beginning to think you are on the side of the Islamofascists with your offensive comparisons of America and those who shoot missles into Jerusalem.

Hoo, boy! There it goes again!

I can't fucking believe you guys. Your sickening neocon fascist bullshit is just twisting the knife in my ever-bleeding heart.

I'm going to go cry over some Chomsky now.

LOL Why am I not surprised? Chomsky is well known as the most famous of the liberal America-haters.

At least he sees through all the fear-mongering and lies. You just hate him 'cos he tells it like it is.

Hey, I want to be an academofascist too! What do I hafta do?

Besides dirty-bombing the stock market, 'cause I could never do that. Where else could I trade my shares of Halliburton?

Considering the track record recently I feel my statement was justified.

Blanket? Possibly... More like a perfect example of what I have been noticing as a disturbing trend.

I love how you assume that I assume I am some how "enlightened", is that not a blanket assumption made about the radical left?

I would say honestly that this wonderful example of compassion that Mr. Spectrein showed fits rather nicely into the recent outbreak of murders, mass killings, rapes, and war crimes that are currently taking place as a result of our armed forces. Does this mean that "EVERY" soldier in our forces is bad? No. Does this statement illustrate that the dehumanization neccessary to participate in such events is becoming more common place within our armed forces? Given the recent events, I would say it totally supports such a theory.

I am not going to appologize for not supporting someone that thinks a chemical weapon that burns the skin off of humans is a good thing.

But that's just me.

Yeah, if by "seeing throught all the fear-mongering and lies" you mean, pushing his radical left-wing agenda of anti-semitism and tax hikes. To hell with that shit.

this thread funny. hurhurhur.

And you purport to love America? Hmm. I'm sorry you don't want to give anything back to your country.

What's "purport" mean?