At the Nuremburg Trials, we (meaning primarily the US) set the precedent that the initiation of aggressive war was a crime punishable by death. I’d really appreciate a coherent explanation as to why the Iraq War is substantively different, given that we now know that there was no immediate threat to our security. Have to keep in mind, his crimes against humanity don’t make our war non-aggressive; only a pressing and certain threat would. Which we all know wasn’t the case.
So…does anyone care?
-Alex Copulsky, Books & Arts Editor