"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:200910011258549530-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-10-01 11:34:10 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"DRS" wrote in message
. au...
There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the
legitimacy of the Taliban government given the state of armed resistance
to it. The invasion of Iraq was unquestionably illegal but the invasion
of Afghanistan is legally ambiguous.

The invasion of Iraq was not, "unquestionably illegal". I question the
illegality of it. Saddam Hussein killed over two million Iraqi's during
his 30 year reign as Iraq's president. To me, this justifies eliminating
him. Certainly, it at least raises the "question" of legality/illegality.
Maybe he only killed one million. Maybe he killed four million. At what
point would you consider it mandatory that the other heads of state in
this world become justified in killing him? Were we justified in killing
Adolf Hitler? Should we have killed Josef Stalin? Should we just turn out
backs on anything, and not ever kill anybody, no matter what they do?
And, in any case, how can you dismiss the whole argument with a half
dozen words?

IIRC we did not kill Hitler (unless you know something we haven't been
told.)
Tojo, we dropped through a floor with a safety rope around his neck, but
Hirohito got a pass, you might say Tojo took the fall for him.

...and Stalin was on our side. We accepted him as an ally with full
knowledge of his butchery.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

And what does any of the above have to do with the question of whether or
not we should take out a despotic head of state?