SHOCKING: Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying (BBC Radio)

nobody wrote in message ...
[snip]
Both Bliar and Bush deserve to be tried for war crimes. Their invasion of Iraq
was just as legal as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or Argentina's invasion of the
Falklands.
[snip]

Nope. I'm no Bush apologist, but this little bit isn't correct. Iraq
was in violation of several agreements, most importantly the one they
signed immediately after the first war, which they started. 'Round
here we joking refer to this as Gulf War 1A (or Ver 1.1). It was
the conclusion of the previous based upon his failure to live up
to the "cease fire" agreements. Yes, there was alot of whoo ha spread
around about what he was doing, but they were in violation and
as such subject to the terms of the surrender they signed.

This makes it "different" than the two invasions of which you
refer. It still leaves alot of discussion room about the advisability
or usefulness of having done it. Just because you can do something,
doesn't mean you should. As the shrub is fond of pointing out, removing
a brutal dictator from power is hard to argue against. None the
less, despite the short term relief given to the people of Iraq,
it isn't clear that in the long run, they will necessarily be
much better off. The US, Britian, France, Italy, and other
countries have all mucked around in other parts of the world
with the so called interest in "improving" conditions for the
inhabitants. The results are neither universal nor generally
admirable.