"a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime"

[stevenleser]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense, usually for territorial gain and subjugation.
.
.
.
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...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."
.
.
.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community”

[rdharma]

1. What's the Wiki definition of a "Putsch"?

And which came first? The chicken...... or the egg?

[stevenleser]

3. Don't know. But under impeachment, Wikipedia lists Ukraine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#Ukraine

During the crisis of which started in November 2013, the increasing political stress of the face-down between the protestors occupying Independence Square in Kiev and the State Security forces under the control of President Yanukovych led to deadly armed force being used on the protestors. Following the negotiated return of Kiev's City Hall on 16 Feb 2014, occupied by the protesters since November 2013, the security forces thought they could also retake "Maidan", Independence Square. The ensuing fighting 17-21 Feb 2014 resulted in a considerable number of deaths and a more generalised alienation of the population, which culminated in the withdrawal of the President to his support area in the East. Parliament convened on 22 February in the wake of his departure, reinstating the 2004 Constitution reducing the Presidential authority and voting President Yanukovych's impeachment as a de-facto recognition of his departure from office as President of and integrated Ukraine. The President riposted with the observation that these acts were illegal, insofar as they could only pass into law by Presidential signature.

[rdharma]

9. Preceded by a Putsch?

Isn't an impeachment after a Putsch just a formality to give the appearance of legitimacy?

The computer says....... YES!

[stevenleser]

13. Wikipedia doesn't list Ukraine as an example of a putsch

But they do list it as an example of an impeachment

[rdharma]

14. Oh, well then Wiki needs updating.......

I guess they missed it!

[stevenleser]

22. Nope, Occam's razor suggests that you're just wrong. Much simpler answer. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. Kinda ironic

that a guy with a "V for Vendetta" avatar is carping about people in masks acting in an extra-judicial manner.

[rdharma]

70. Ironic that you always take the RW side .....

.... on so many issues.

Well, maybe not a surprise.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

74. The side I take is pro-people.

People free to live their lives on their own terms without being forced to submit to corporatists, monopolists, authoritarians and despots.

If you have anything better than an ad hominem please feel free to explain why the masked terrorist you idolize is somehow more palatable than what your previous post is meant to depict.

[rdharma]

78. Have you seen the players in the interim govt?

.... Talk about RW oligarchs and "rule of the thug".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

92. I see Russia using its military to invade a soverign nation for the sake of military expansion.

[rdharma]

99. Won't get fooled again........

Meet the new boss......... same as the old boss......

But new and improved with neo-Nazi Ukrainian ultra-nationalist berries!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

100. And your pic proves what? That there are neo-Nazis in Ukraine?

By that standard that would make Obama a fascist.

Meanwhile, Putin covers for neo-Nazis who kidnap and torture gays. How come you're so silent about THAT boss?

[rdharma]

101. Your comment doesn't make any sense.....

"By that standard that would make Obama a fascist." - Nuclear Unicorn

HUH?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

102. There are neo-Nazis in the US.

If neo-Nazis in Ukraine = illegitimate Ukraine government then neo-Nazis in the US = illegitimate US government.

Since this situation started the anti-West cheerleaders have held up the Svoboda red herring as the sole/major party in Ukraine. They act as if Svo was in any way the impetus for Putin's action or that Putin wasn't as detestable -- or that the point hasn't been debunked outright.

Even assuming your point for the sake of argument Svo has not invaded a sovereign nation for the sole purpose of expanding their military power. Russia has and yet you and others are determined to shield this act for its due criticism (while hypocritically tossing about ad homs about siding with RWers).

[rdharma]

103. How many neo-nazis in the US Government?

This is my last reply to you. You're bizarre straw man and red herrings are boring me.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

105. How many are in the Ukraine government?

[OnyxCollie]

2. Just look forward.

It's easy.

[1000words]

4. lol

[Octafish]

88. Pays, too.

Handsomely.

[on point]

5. So Bush Cheney Rice Rumsfeld et al are war criminals then?

[MNBrewer]

7. Yes, they are.

That legitimizes Russia's grab of the Crimea HOW??? Exactly?

[Crunchy Frog]

17. The fact that they did it and got away with it establishes a precedent.

I recall listening to an interview with Tom Friedman shortly after Iraq. When asked the reason for the invasion, he said "because we wanted to and we could".

Basically, the law as it's written is window dressing. The real, but unwritten, law is that it's legitimate to invade another country if you want to and you can, or "might makes right". When this country prosecutes our own set of criminals, then it can get all sanctimonious about the crimes of other countries.

Russia will certainly pay a stiff price for its actions, and I'm sure that Putin knows this. He has probably calculated that the gain of a warm water port (which Russia has regarded as critical to its interests for centuries) will be greater than whatever losses result.

I'm pretty sure that the Russians believe that if the US can operate under "might makes right" that they can too.

[stevenleser]

24. No, it doesnt. War criminals have been prosecuted after much longer periods of time.

Rwandan and Guatemalan and Khmer Rouge war criminals are still in the process of being prosecuted for the first time.

[Crunchy Frog]

48. Very often they are never prosecuted.

Bush and Cheney almost certainly won't be, and in all likelihood, Putin won't either.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

77. Sorry, I don't accept that argument.

When this country prosecutes our own set of criminals, then it can get all sanctimonious about the crimes of other countries.

That's like saying because OJ bought his way out of a murder conviction that somehow obviates all other murder trials.

[stevenleser]

8. Absolutely they are. As is Putin. Nt

[Fumesucker]

18. And there need to be consequences for war criminals

Crimes against humanity cry out for justice.

[TroglodyteScholar]

59. I think any reasonable person would answer in the affirmative.n/t

[L0oniX]

84. Don't forget about all the Joseph Goebbels tv networks who stoked the drum beat.

[Octafish]

90. One led the pack.

Rupert Murdoch Pushed Poodle to Join GOP-BFEE Rush to Iraq War

Shocking: Did Rupert Murdoch Push Tony Blair on Iraq War?

Rupert Murdoch took part in an "over-crude" attempt by US Republicans to push Tony Blair into action before the invasion of Iraq, the former British prime minister's ex-media chief claimed Saturday.

Alastair Campbell said the News Corporation media baron warned Blair in a phone call of the dangers in delaying signing up to the March 19, 2003 invasion, as part of an attempt to speed up Britain joining the military campaign.

SNIP...

"Both TB and I felt it was prompted by Washington, and another example of their over-crude diplomacy. Murdoch was pushing all the Republican buttons, how the longer we waited the harder it got."

The following day he added: "TB felt the Murdoch call was odd, not very clever."

CONTINUED...

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/970894/shocking%3A_did_rupert_murdoch_push_tony_blair_on_iraq_war/

Geepers. The things one misses when busy moving on. And to think some believe it's all, uh, coincidence.

[polichick]

93. Absolutely - and our current president's eagerness to "look forward" is...

what makes us "weak" now. We have no credibility for good reason.

[Demo_Chris]

6. If this is a war of aggression than America needs to take notes. nt

[rdharma]

10. Exactly! What's a "war of aggression" without "shock an' awwww sheeet"?

[Comrade Grumpy]

11. Tell it to the Crimeans.

[MNBrewer]

12. I think they're already familiar with it...

[Comrade Grumpy]

36. And by all accounts, quite pleased.

[stevenleser]

39. Just like the Austrians and sudeten Czechs... at first. Of course, with the vote irregularities...

there is no telling whether the Crimeans are really pleased.

123% of every man woman and child in Sevastopol voting to secede ought to make any honest person wonder what the deal was with the vote.

Then of course we have the LGBT folks in Crimea. I doubt they are pleased. Unless like Ahmadinejad you are going to claim there are no LGBT folks in Crimea? Or do you just not care about them?

[Democracyinkind]

55. Pretending that the new Ukrainian regime is any better on LGTB issues is ludicrous.

Not that you did that outright, but you kind of implied it. For LGTB's in Crimea, this was and is a no-win situation. Personally I don't see the difference between being persecuted by Putin's or Ukrainian nationalists.

[MNBrewer]

68. Objectively, GLBT rights in Ukraine aren't good, but better than in Russia

[Democracyinkind]

69. I don't think that that is true, "objectively".

Actually, they regularly made the "worst for LGBT" list even under Janukovitch, and now, with Swoboda and the Far Right Sector sharing power - god help them.

It may be true that they were slightly better of as far as legislation was concerned (which will change soon enough, if true), but certainly no better off when it comes to anti-LGBT violence.

[MNBrewer]

72. Svoboda isn't in power. They hold a minority of seats in the cabinet and in parliament

and while GLBT people may be at risk in Ukraine, the situation is objectively much worse for them in Russia.

[Democracyinkind]

73. Having a party that calls for anti-gay violence in the parliament certainly doesn't help.

Not that there's much difference between Swoboda and the Far Right Sector as far as LGBT rights are concerned.

Calls for anti-gay violence have thereby become just as mainstream as in Russia, if not more.

By what measure do you "objectively" make your claim about the supposed difference?

[Bluenorthwest]

76. it is actually very true.

Anyone who wants to read up could do start here
http://www.globalequality.org/storage/documents/pdf/2010_hr_report_sogi_references-europeeurasia.pdf

And here
http://www.globalequality.org/index.php

[Democracyinkind]

79. ...

By skimming over your links, I did not find the part that says Russia is worse than Ukraine. I'll be happy to consider it if you can point me to it. The report in your first link lists about the same grievances for Russia and Ukraine, as far as I read it.

I have based my observations on the 2013 ‘Hall of Shame’ report on LGBT rights from Human Rights watch.

[MNBrewer]

80. Objective reality and facts will not sink in among the "neo-nazis run Ukraine" crowd.

Things for GLBT people need to improve in Ukraine, but are better than in Russia. It's just a fact.

[Democracyinkind]

82. Again, I ask you, by what measure is it a fact?

I do not understand on what basis you are making that judgment.

[MNBrewer]

85. No, you don't understand

Reality. That's the basis. Real laws. Real government policies. Real actions by real neo-Nazis against real GLBT people in real places.

Show one instance of where the situation for GLBT people in Ukraine is worse than for GLBT people in Russia. One REAL instance.

I'll put out the case for Russia being worse starting right here.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/tag/occupy-pedophilia/

[Democracyinkind]

89. If I get your argument correctly... You have linked to a list of violent anti-gay incidents inRussia

So I will reply with this:

• Vadym Kolesnichenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament, for initiating one of two draft laws currently before parliament that would discriminate against LGBT people and infringe on their fundamental rights to free expression. The first bill would prohibit the dissemination of positive information about homosexuality, including through such activities as rallies, parades, demonstrations, discussions, or special courses. The second bill provides for similar prohibitions on the publication and distribution of written or recorded products that present homosexuality in a positive light. Violators of the laws would face up to six and five years in prison, respectively.

• The Ukrainian political party Svoboda, which holds 12 percent of seats in parliament, for including a pledge to “introduce criminal responsibility for propaganda of drug use and sexual perversions” as part of its party platform. The party repeatedly speaks out against LGBT people’s rights and has announced its support for homophobic bills. On May 14 Iryna Farion, a Svoboda member of parliament, told media, referring to LGBT people: “They should be cured. I do not make comments about sick people. I don’t understand what you are asking me about. They need to be cured.” In July and December 2012, Svoboda party members were involved in attacking a peaceful protest against homophobic laws.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/17/lgbt-rights-2013-hall-shame

I have conceded the point that the Ukrainian bigots haven't been as succesful as their Russian counterparts upthread. So that part of the argument I understand.

On the subject of anti-gay violence, I really fail to see the difference. While I do not know of any scientific estimation of incidents, I recall reading about anti-gay violence in the Ukraine in 2012 and 2013 regularly, as exemplified in this article:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/130829/anti-gay-groups-stage-mounting-attacks-ukraine

You said one REAL instance. I guess that makes this a closed case.

But I really don't want to push your buttons - I was curious on what basis you were making the claim, and I still fail to see how you came to your conclusions "objectively. I thought that maybe there was a report or something that I wasn't aware of. I really did not want to upset you.

[MNBrewer]

94. I have also conceded that the situation for GLBT people in Ukraine is not good and needs improvement

But it is NOT worse than in Russia. It is, in fact, WORSE in Russia.

Svoboda is bad, bad bad bad awful. And they don't control the government.

We have had and continue to have, right here in the good ol' U S of A, elected representatives who propose similar anti-gay measures. Fortunately for us they haven't been successful. And, our population is much more enlightened on the topic of sexual orientation.

If Ukraine is to be embraced by the EU, which it seems this revolution was about, at least in part, then they will have to improve on GLBT rights issues. The EU doesn't allow member nations to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

[joeybee12]

87. As a gay man who has been to the Ukraine, yeah, they are...

It's not great, but the younger generation is much more accepting...you still have a large influence by the Orthodox church, but that is changing.

[Democracyinkind]

91. I really have no objective basis to compare the two, and I wondered if such exists.

From the anecdotal evidence that I came across, it sounds like it is pretty much the same: Violence against PRIDE parades, random violence against people perceived to be LGBT, open calls for anti-LGBT violence by establishment figures such as church officials and political parties.

I do see how Ukrainian LGBT people are still better off concerning the legislative situation, but I fear that this will change very soon.

[joeybee12]

95. A big difference is in Russia, even huge cities like Moscow and St Petersburg

are experiencing violence and grimes against LGBT...you wouldn't find that in Kiev...in many ways, the anti-gay laws in Russia are simply Putin's way of finding a nice scapegoat for how awful his policies are and how awful the economy is for most Russians...gotta blame someone...the Ukraine is far enough removed so they see through that a little.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. This is the correct answer. Russia has been moving in the wrong direction on an official

basis. Both countries are hugely informed by Orthodox Church and by Soviet past, it was illegal to be gay in USSR.

[Xithras]

96. The new President of Ukraine is an Evangelical Baptist pastor who called gays a "perversion"

He was also a supporter of the 2012 anti-homosexuality law that would have imposed Russian-style discrimination in Ukraine, and opposed a law last year that would have banned employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.

The LGBT community is screwed no matter what they do. It's a serious case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

[MNBrewer]

97. Not if Ukraine wants EU access...

[Petrushka]

57. There were "vote irregularities..."? & "123%...ought to make any honest person wonder...."? Indeed!

http://www.globalresearch.ca/what-the-western-media-wont-tell-you-crimean-tatars-and-ukrainians-also-voted-to-join-russia/5373989

Honestly! (**tsk**)

[Marr]

15. Tell me how what you're doing is not pro-war rhetoric.

The last time I recall having an exchange with you, it was regarding your descriptions of Russia's actions as a new Anschluss-- a direct comparison to the Nazis. And now here you are promoting the idea that what we're looking at in the Ukraine is "the supreme international crime".

These are not positions from which one advocates a measured response. These are arguments people make for war.

We seem to have a lot of people here who are happily building the stage, while insisting they have nothing to do with the play, and would never want to see one happen.

[stevenleser]

20. No, you WANT to interpret it that way. Its an absolute logic fail on your part.

If I say, Joe over there committed a violent felony, will you then interpret that as a suggestion we kill Joe?

No, when you commit a crime, the remedy is to prosecute. The international community has tools at its disposal to deal with those who break the law. Sanctions, embargoes, etc.

[Marr]

30. Really? Your response to "the supreme international crime" would be sanctions?

How likely is it, do you suppose, that people who buy into your diagnosis would agree with your prescription?

[stevenleser]

32. So, you're response to the supreme individual crime of murder is to kill the person, is it?

That is my expectation of how you would react considering the leap of logic you are making in trying to project that kind of a response onto me.

[Marr]

46. I honestly don't know what you were trying to say there.

I have a very simple point. I don't want to see the US involved in any more unnecessary wars in my lifetime, and we have a significant political faction in this country that always seems to want to go to war. You've probably met some of their mouthpieces at Fox, where they specialize in framing the debate just for that crazy, warmongering little faction.

I consider the type of rhetoric you're using here to be decidedly war-enabling. It's like throwing an easy pitch for the war nuts to knock out of the park.

[fascisthunter]

75. Your Rhetoric is stating Otherwise

or at least, it sure comes off that way.

[stevenleser]

86. No, it doesnt. nt

[Crunchy Frog]

16. So why aren't Bush and Cheney in prison?

I think this country needs to clean up its own criminal element before going after others.

[Electric Monk]

19. Matthew 7:3-5, for any Christians out there

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A3-5&version=KJV

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

[Crunchy Frog]

41. It's very good, even for those of us who are not Christians.

It pretty much says it all.

[stevenleser]

21. This isn't about "this country". Its about the issue I am discussing. nt

[Fumesucker]

23. The issue of justice for the victims of war criminals is an excellent and long overdue one

I commend you for bringing it to our attention in this OP.

[Electric Monk]

25. You consider yourself a Christian, if I'm not mistaken? See post #19. That's for you. nt

[1000words]

26. You're not discussing anything.

You are implying, evading and, predictably, dismissing.

[stevenleser]

33. Oh I am discussing things, I'm just not playing your silly games. nt

[1000words]

37. Heh ...

If Benkie has any kind of forensics background, she going to hand you your hat.

Chin up, I'm now considering tuning in ...

[Crunchy Frog]

42. Oh. I thought the issue you were discussing was "wars of aggression"

and their being "the supreme international crime". I posted about people who were responsible for the "supreme international crime" of an unprovoked "war of aggression" who just happen to be on this country's soil, and therefore amenable to prosecution by our legal authorities.

I guess your post wasn't about "wars of aggression" even though you said it was? I'm kind of confused.

[Adam051188]

27. gee, i think i've heard of a "steven leser" who goes on main stream news now and then

makes sense

[1000words]

28. Nope

Makes money.

[Adam051188]

29. yes sir

[stevenleser]

35. As opposed to you who has sworn off earning money for religion?

[Adam051188]

44. earning?.....

[Cha]

58. Do you have something against being paid to work? And, yes he does make sense.. Steven

speaks to our Democratic principles and issues.

[TroglodyteScholar]

60. "Steven speaks to our Democratic principles and issues."

Yes, but apparently he does so only at a price.

Not cause for concern? Not even a little bit?

[Cha]

61. How ridiculous.. Do you think Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, etc do not get paid?

[TroglodyteScholar]

104. Of course they get paid. And they do plenty of good work.

But they're also entertainers selling a product, and they work for megacorporations that have their own interests that will get promoted regardless of whether our favorite personalities are actively on-board. They're implicitly on-board with anything "the company" does as long as they take a paycheck there.

I'm not putting any judgment in this, just being matter of fact. When someone writes about policy, social issues, etc for a paycheck, it would be crazy not to bear that in mind when consuming their content. And we all get offended when we learn that someone is getting paid without being forthright about it--again not accusing anyone here, but making a point... money matters to content to varying degrees in different venues. But it's reckless to assume that money can't influence someone just because we like them.

[OnyxCollie]

98. It's fine for a BOG favorite

to receive compensation from Fox News, but god forbid Dennis Kucinich should receive the same.

[stevenleser]

34. Wow, can't get anything by you considering I use my real name as my handle. nt

[bravenak]

50. I voted to leave it. I felt like it was right under the line.

But I did not read the thread first, so idk what you guys were talking about. I have seen you handle worse comments than that on Fox.
On Wed Mar 19, 2014, 03:16 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

someone wants a cookie
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4688703

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"sit up and beg first" is an asshole response to the the post he is replying to .

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 19, 2014, 03:23 AM, and the Jury voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Response could be playful vs. rude. Written text is not always clear and in this case, could go either way.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not quite over the top. You can call people piece of ---- whatevers here. Totally acceptable i have noticed.
It was rude and a bit snarky, but just within the realm of acceptability.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: the whole sub thread is personal attack.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Sit up and beg sounds like something a crazy movie villain would say.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Number five was the best comment!! you were at 49. I figured i'd make it an even 50.

[JI7]

51. i alerted on this, i disagree that it was acceptable, especially when you look at the whole

subthread. the person is hostile from the start but only makes personal attacks without referring to the issue at all.

also based on the entire thing it's clear it's not being playful .

[bravenak]

52. I did not read the thread first.

I should have. I will next time.

[JI7]

53. no problem, i should have mentioned the entire subthread

when alerting. at least it's still hidden .

[bravenak]

54. Sit up and beg is now on my bad list.

Fool me once.... You know the drill.

[Cha]

56. thanks for alerting, JI7!!! And, GOOD HIDE.

"Sit up and beg".. stupidass thing to say.

[Fumesucker]

31. That's some good shit, man

[KoKo]

64. yup...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. OK. So, America is guilty many times over. What now?

[arcane1]

40. That quote was shared widely on DU during the "shock and awe" campaign.

3,000 bombs and missiles, if I recall correctly.

[G_j]

67. and this,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1242894

Statement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson
Chief U.S. Prosecutor
at the Nuremberg Tribunals
August 12, 1945
on War Trials Agreement; August 12, 1945

There are some things I would like to say, particularly to the American people, about the agreement we have just signed.
For the first time, four of the most powerful nations have agreed not only upon the principles of liability for war crimes of persecution, but also upon the principle of individual responsibility for the crime of attacking the international peace.

Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal. They have condemned it by treaty. But now we have the concrete application of these abstractions in a way which ought to make clear to the world that those who lead their nations into aggressive war face individual accountability for such acts.
<snip>

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which
their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the
war, but that they started it. And we must not allow
ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war,
for our position is that no grievances or policies will
justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced
and condemned as an instrument of policy."
<snip>

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson
Chief U.S. Prosecutor
at the Nuremberg Tribunals
August 12, 1945

READ THE ENTIRE STATEMENT HERE:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jack02.htm

[Scootaloo]

43. Unless someone the US likes conducts such a crime

No no, Steve, I "get it" from you, Russia's in the wrong. We know it, and I'm not making a "two wrongs make a right" argument

But you are crying foul over what actually isn't a war of aggression (there's no war, for instance, despite the fondest wishes of Wolf Blitzer, Bill Kristol, and several other smirking fuckstains), while residing in a nation that conducted not one, but two of the most egregious such violations since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

TO say nothing of our allies like Israel, Uganda, Great britain, Morocco, India and / or Pakistan, et al.

It's not that all these nations being in the wrong allieves Russia of its own fuckup. it's that you're pretending absolutely none of those nations are guilty; just Russia.

Some of us are very curious why, and what exactly you might want as an outcome from this situation.

[JackRiddler]

62. As they say: +1

[Chisox08]

47. Then when will Bush and his croonies get charged for commiting war crimes?

Iraq and Afghanistan along with all of the drones strikes we have been carrying out over the years fits the definition of wars of aggression.

[Democracyinkind]

49. We lost any right to hold on to that standard long ago through our own misbehavior, and

"war" usually involves shots fired, battles, and lots of corpses. For those reasons I'm willing to give Russia a pass on this one. Well, for and other reasons, demographic, historic and strategic.

[stevenleser]

107. No, 'we' didn't. I am not Bush or his government. I protested that war and retain the right to hold

on to that standard.

[Democracyinkind]

108. You might not have, but "we" did, in the eyes of most of the rest of the world.

We can still pursue this rhetoric, we'll just have to live with being called hypocrites.

[JackRiddler]

63. Comedy thread gold!

[WhiteTara]

66. So when do we send *co to the Hague?

[L0oniX]

81. Bill ...is that you?

[PowerToThePeople]

83. The United States has been involved in a number of overseas interventions throughout its history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_United_States

[Cha]

106. I see you're pissing off all the people who hurl their little insults and resort to playground

taunts that they think are so bully-boy clever.

Good Job, Steven.