Why the US cannot be wrong.

I have always wondered why there isn't open debate about the inadequacy of the United States government and how dangerous it has become to everyone in the world. I have come to a conclusion:

Democracy has evolved into the greatest weapon against free thought known to mankind. It is currently the status quo on all things fair and equal all over the planet, and yet now its truest weakness is beginning to show. The United States, the self proclaimed nearest-to-perfect democracy, has REelected officials who act to the detriment of society.

This fact alone threatens not only the idea of 'democracy,' but also of the human race's confidence in their judgment and minds. Because of this, we must continue to reinforce the idea that whoever we vote into office can do no absolute wrong, and in that, we've established a totalitarian control on our own ability to think.

Any 'thoughts'?

>>11
The 1991 Gulf War was ended with a cease-fire that stipulated a number of conditions for the Saddam regime. Since the regime violated the cease-fire numerous times, the other parties to the cease-fire had the authority to remove the government.

How exactly does Resolution 1441 require a second resolution to authorize military action? Nowhere does it state so explicitly, and it does state that Iraq "will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." Iraq was also in violation of other resolutions, such as 687. And with veto-wielding France and Russia in Saddam's back pocket, the matter would probably still be tied up in the U.N. if an explicit second resolution was sought, with millions of Iraqis still suffering and Saddam and his cronies still supporting terror and concealing a weapons program.

Let's see...the War Crimes Act of 1996 basically reaffirms the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Since the Geneva Convention deals with prisoners and other personell issues, can you cite the part of the Hague Convention that prohibits the removal of a government in violation of treaties and agreements with foreign powers?

I'm curious as to where Albero Gonzales called an invasion of Iraq illegal. As for the "international law experts," I could care less, especially since they're properly "internationalist" and all that. And Kofi Annan's opinion means little, since we know of his conflicts of interest.

I find it sort of sad that we're arguing over whether or not it's "legal" to depose a dictator and replace him with a democratic government, but I suppose such are the fruits of a generation that was raised on a steady diet of defeatism and war always, unequivocally, being a Bad Thing to be avoided at all costs, even if it meant making concessions to facistic regimes.

Some links (see what a nice guy I am):

U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996:
http//ww/...

Hague and Geneva Conventions:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm

UN Security Council Resolution 1441:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

UN Security Council Resolution 687:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_687