The American conservatives have always been in favor of law and order when it's applied to the other guy   -   the working class or another country   -   but when it comes to their own projects, like big corporations and the global economy, they want government to butt out, and de-regulate.  They're against the UN and the world court because they don't want to be told what to do.  They use the UN only when it suits their needs.  Anyone who disagrees is unpatriotic or un-American.  Personally, I find no shortage of quality coverage challenging the legitimacy of the war.    - A.

Cool Breeze

“ I said in my previous post that the USA has done good things as well. Snuffing out Hitler was one of them. The reason modern countries  -  democratic and undemocratic  -  attempt to justify and explain their deeds is very simple: the mass media exist and information can be transmitted. Because this is possible, everybody does it. ”

While there is no question that information can be more widely disseminated now than ever before, it is simplistic to say that mere knowledge of aggressive military actions is or has ever been enough for other states to denounce it, and thus for the aggressor to attempt to justify it.  The telephone has existed for over 125 years, and the telegraph for 40 years before that.  Word got around.  Newspapers from around the world reported on the European powers' "Race for Africa" which continued into the 20th century.  No, the truth is that following Word War II the world experienced a dramatic shift in its collective conscience.  The primary reasons for this were a war-weary Europe and a strong victor stepping into the power vacuum with no territorial ambitions. This victor was the United States, and it was perhaps the first time in history that a country had, upon victory, sought the future prevention of war rather than retribution on its enemies.  This was in marked contrast to the attitude of the also-victorious Soviet Union.

What I had in mind was the history of the USA, not so much what happened in the 20th century. The westward expansion of the USA gave a bad deal to Indians, for example. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was largely dictated to Indian leaders even though it was supposed to be voluntary. The annexation of Texas in 1845 is another example of heedless US imperialism.”

What made you think I was referring solely to the 20th century?  I did mention slavery as an example of a failure of the United States in always living up to its democratic ideals.  I could name many more, but my ultimate point remains the same: while the United States has not always lived up to its ideals, having those ideals to look to has led to a general trend of progress that continues to this day.  Also, I wouldn't call the annexation of Texas explicitly imperial or aggressive as it was voluntarily approved by what was then the Republic of Texas.  Rather, it was the Mexican-American War that tends to look like an excuse for land-grabbing. 

In the past, the great powers of the day expanded in similar fashion. As Western culture is largely a legacy of the Roman Empire, it is taken for granted in Western history books that Rome expanded by waging war against its neighbors. No one suggests that Rome had no moral right to conquer other peoples. Its military achievements are viewed with admiration rather than condemnation. This gives Westerners a clean conscience. ”

Again, this is an oversimplification.  The desire on the part of the powerful to control the weak is a universal human trait.  Empires existed well before Rome and have occurred since in regions with no Roman legacy.  Apart from Fascists, I have rarely, if ever, heard the exploits of the Roman military used specifically as justification for Western military conquests.  If justification was ever given prior to World War II it usually centered on religious or racial --the "White Man's Burden"-- motivation.  The legacy of the Roman Empire has indeed maintained a tradition of respect in the Western world, but just as often as it is praised for its achievements it is derided for its hedonism and immorality (especially in regards to its pre-Christian status).  Again, the need to justify military action is quite simply a modern construct.  You're correct in asserting that no one argues that Rome had no right to conquer, but you're missing the greater point.  No argues against the morality of Rome's actions because everyone knows that morality was never a factor.  Taking it a step further, my point is that morality was almost never a serious factor in the history of war and conquest until after World War II.  Before that it was the law of the jungle.  A country or people only had as many rights as they could defend.

Even though the USA was instrumental in creating the United Nations, it nowadays cares little about international law. The illegal war on Iraq is a good example of that and so are the tortured prisoners of Guantanamo. The USA praised Saddam Hussein just weeks before he attacked Kuwait. Saddam was one of America's best friends in the Middle East. That was because Iraqi oil was sold cheaply to the USA. For the same reason the US is on good terms with the ruthless dictatorial rulers of Saudi Arabia. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, by the way. The uninitiated might wonder why the USA didn't attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq. After all, even the CIA must have known that Saddam Hussein and Al Queda hated each other.”

Let me state now my belief that the Iraq War was unjustified and a practical mistake.  I also deplore the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and believe they are entitled fully to the rights prescribed both in the Geneva Convention and US Constitution.  Still, I assure you that Americans in general do care about international law.  Both Barack Obama and John McCain have promised to close Guantanamo Bay upon election.  Even those who feel opposite the way I do on Iraq and Guantanamo Bay tend to still believe that the United States is acting within the constraints of international law, they obviously just have a different, more expedient interpretation of it.  Anyway, this highlights a deeper issue: the true power and meaning of what we call "international law"...

Cool Breeze

“The United Nations didn't authorize the war. The United States didn't have the UN's permission to start the war.”

Making that claim is easy but entirely non-responsive.

Cite your evidence. In particular explain the provision "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660" as well as the other provisions of Resolution 1441." (emphasis added) as well as the many other provisions of Resolution 1441 all of which add up to a declaration of war (in diplomat-speak, to be sure, but a declaration nonetheless) if Iraq failed to comply with 1441 and all other relevant resolutions.

Goodman

“   Look at the south borders.
 It's wide open for anyone who wants to make a crossing and now, with the help of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelposi the truck drivers from the south can travle freely in the US soil.  ”

I always thought NAFTA was a Bush project.  The new central trucking corridor and the free admission of Mexican trucking companies are part of the ultra conservative plot to destroy the longshoreman's union, by unloading ships in Mexican ports and allowing Mexican truckers to deliver the goods into the US heartland (shipping containers filled with who-knows what.)

Once they've destroyed the unions and the middle class, you can kiss the two-party system goodby.

But I do agree with you that it's off topic.   - A.