CNN's God's Warriors

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Yeah, I'd really stop short of calling the invasion of Iraq an act of terrorism, no matter how spurious the casus belli may have been.

That being said, Robertson may have encouraged terrorism of a different type. There have been multiple instances of whackos killing or attempting to kill doctors who perform abortions. Is it much of a stretch to state that their acts were motivated by the likes of Robertson and other anti-abortion crusaders?

Probably not. To a degree I would agree with you.

I'm not a fan of ANY religious leader who encourages, mentions, supports or even talks about violence, killing...stuff like that. There are too many idiots out there who take what they say, WITHOUT the grain of salt. Too many fanatics who would carry out such idiotic acts.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FireFly

According to the only global governing structure we've got, it was illegal. The problem is they can't do anything about it. Do you think the people in Iraq care that the US government said it was okay to invade them?

Do you think anyone REALLY cares what the UN thinks? Seriously...on the world stage, in areas of violence, just how effective are they? I'm sure you know as well as I do the incompetence of the UN that has resulted in the deaths of millions of people.

I believe as much as the next guy in the global governing structure. I know it can have its positives...but the UN is to me VERY incompetent...in areas regarding military action.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Azure

Do you think anyone REALLY cares what the UN thinks? Seriously...on the world stage, in areas of violence, just how effective are they? I'm sure you know as well as I do the incompetence of the UN that has resulted in the deaths of millions of people.

I believe as much as the next guy in the global governing structure. I know it can have its positives...but the UN is to me VERY incompetent...in areas regarding military action.

Oh, I don't disagree with you, but you said that it wasn't an illegal war, and it was.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Oh, I don't disagree with you, but you said that it wasn't an illegal war, and it was.

Booyah! I'll have to clarify what I mean next time.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Azure

Booyah! I'll have to clarify what I mean next time.

I get caught on that all the time. You can't exaggerate anything on this board without being called on it.

And if the UN had any balls, they'd try Bush for war crimes. I think that would send the biggest message to the world... if they proved they don't care who you are, they aren't picking sides. I think it's needed, but I don't think it'll happen.

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by Azure

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That is how governments operate.

Might seem like common sense to you and me...NOT to side with such violent people. Its not so rosy when you're the president of the united states.

Don't get ME wrong...I'm not saying it was right. But you have to understand the political process involved. Its not like the biggest player on the world stage will isolate themselves from situations THEY feel can effect them at home.

And therein lies a major part of the problem. The US cannot think past tomorrow and has learned NOTHING about their own history. The President is elected, supposedly, to make the tough decisions. And they have failed miserably at every single one of them. Almost every single example (save the second Gulf War) had a best a negligible impact at home.

I agree that it is better to be proactive and to solve the issue before it spins out of control. But when was the last time you ever saw a compromise on the international stage when religion was involved??

Regarding the UN, it is completely inept. This is due in large part to the US not wanting anything to do with it in terms of actual policy, financing, compromising, and policing. The fact that 5 countries can single handledly derail any Security Resolution is a joke. The USA, UK, China, Russia, and France...FRANCE...can veto anything.

Just finished watching the Christian God Warriors. And I am just as scared of them as the Muslim fanatics because of the pure political power and control they currently have.

As the old saying goes we are doomed to repeat history.

[MarchHare]

The Iraq war wasn't illegal because it didn't receive UN authorization. It was illegal because of precedents set at the Nuremberg trials after WWII -- trials in which the United States assumed a leadership role, no less.

While the "Crimes Against Humanity" charge receives the most attention (and for good reason), that was only one of the four charges raised against the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg. Two others were "Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace" and "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace".

Walter J. Rockler, one of the American prosecutors at Nuremberg, wrote this in 1999:

As a primary source of international law, the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal in the 1945-1946 case of the major Nazi war criminals is plain and clear. Our leaders often invoke and praise that judgment, but obviously have not read it. The International Court declared:

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.

At Nuremberg, the United States and Britain pressed the prosecution of Nazi leaders for planning and initiating aggressive war. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the head of the American prosecution staff, asserted "that launching a war of aggression is a crime and that no political or economic situation can justify it." He also declared that "if certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."

The United Nations Charter views aggression similarly. Articles 2(4) and (7) prohibit interventions in the domestic jurisdiction of any country and threats of force or the use of force by one state against another. The General Assembly of the UN in Resolution 2131, "Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention," reinforced the view that a forceful military intervention in any country is aggression and a crime without justification.

Emphasis mine.

http://www.zmag.org/crisescurevts/nurletter.htm

So yes, the US invasion of Iraq was illegal if one is to use the precedent set by America's own prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

I know for a fact that Pat Robertson has suggested assassinating certain political figures such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. He has also said that God is punishing Muslims when the tsunami hit Southeast Asia in December 2005.

So he is a jerk. President for Life Chavez has yet to push up daisys.

[HOZ]

Saw the Christian warriors today. Very interesting and in stark contrast to their Muslim Warrior bretheren.

Pretty scary when people use their civil rights to form a group and use the democratic process.

Looking forward to seeing the Jewish Warriors.

[RubberDuck]

Does anyone know when these episodes will be re-airing?

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by Azure

Congress gave the approval to go to war. Its not like Bush declared martial law, and then went to war with Iraq.

Washington...for the most part, was in line with what he wanted to do.

That is like saying the Clerics of Iran approved of Bin Laden's plan to attack the WTC therefore it is alright. (Not saying they did though)

Congress, the UN, the President, the media, etc are all just institutions. There has to be a higher standard that you hold people to in terms of just action versus unjust action. Just because those institutions are legitimate to you and/or Americans does not mean they are somehow 'truly' legitimate or that they are legitimate to people in say, the Middle East.

I still find it shocking that people see the invasion of Iraq as a just action and a good allocation of finite American resources and power. Before even examining the morality of the war (hard to do), the opportunity cost alone of the Iraq war is unbelievable....



Claeren.

[FlameCity]

Originally Posted by RubberDuck

Does anyone know when these episodes will be re-airing?

All three will be shown Saturday 7 - 11 & Sunday 7 - 11 Link

[RubberDuck]

^^^^^^^^
Thank you!

[Hemi-Cuda]

great series, just finished watching them. and now i think a democrat needs to win the presidency more than ever. it's scary to think of what the US will become if another right wing christian evangelical gets into office

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

great series, just finished watching them. and now i think a democrat needs to win the presidency more than ever. it's scary to think of what the US will become if another right wing christian evangelical gets into office

Oh please. Both sides invoke religion. BOTH sides!

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

great series, just finished watching them. and now i think a democrat needs to win the presidency more than ever. it's scary to think of what the US will become if another right wing christian evangelical gets into office

Republican does not equal Right Wing Christian Evangelical.

Man...this gets old.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Republican does not equal Right Wing Christian Evangelical.

Man...this gets old.

Fair enough.

I think he has a point though -- the last thing America needs is another right-wing Christian evangelical type becoming President. And if it happens, I think we know which party that person will belong too.

If I may paraphrase the great Ann Coulter -- "all Republicans are not right-wing Christian evangelists, but all right-wing Christian evangelists are Republicans.".

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh please. Both sides invoke religion. BOTH sides!

i didn't see Clinton appointing religious right wing chief justices to the supreme court or stamping all over gay rights. and of the 3 democratic candidates that have any shot of getting in (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) none seem liable to let religion run over their politics

on the other hand, the leading republican candidate is a devout mormon. and there's a reason Falwell always supported right wing candidates, because the republicans use the christian right as their base. Guliani is the only one who doesn't pander to the religious but he's even crazier than the rest in other areas

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

i didn't see Clinton appointing religious right wing chief justices to the supreme court or stamping all over gay rights. and of the 3 democratic candidates that have any shot of getting in (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) none seem liable to let religion run over their politics

on the other hand, the leading republican candidate is a devout mormon. and there's a reason Falwell always supported right wing candidates, because the republicans use the christian right as their base. Guliani is the only one who doesn't pander to the religious but he's even crazier than the rest in other areas

Giuliani is the only Republican candidate that doesn't pander to the religious? How about McCain? Paul?

Sheesh.

And ALL CANDIDATES pander to the religious to an extent because religious people are VOTERS!

Wow.

You really hate religious people don't you?

[feartheflames]

Amanpour is an objective journalist... I am very disappointed I missed it