Hi GL,

Thanks for your comment. One thing I'm interested in, if it doesn't detract from gratitude toward the editors and contributors here (of course)...

re: "...the "illegality" of the war is far from established."

I'm curious about your opinion on the following: What would be required, one way or the other, to establish the "illegality"? (Or, legality, for that matter?)

Hi GLT149 - I've scoured his bio and can't find an apology, only a resume loaded with references to his "targeting" expertise. I agree that his position at Interior can provide insight and I'm not suggesting he shouldn't be on staff, only that the exploration of energy issues, of which TOD is providing admirable leadership and quality analysis, should never lose site of the sobering and tragic human suffering caused by our involvement in this war, a war thats very clearly about control of the last remaining oil reserves. 655,000 innocent Iraquis have died since the beginning of our latest involvement, which brings the total to well over a million since Bush One's foray. I normally appreciate how TOD sticks to the energy facts, but I believe it's time we all pull together to end this thing and this community has a lot to say about why we might concievably be there in the first place. As far as the legality vs, illegality of the war. I know the U.S doesn't recognize International law anymore but the Nuremberg judgement spelled it out pretty clearly. Agressive wars are illegal. This is an aggressive war.

"The Nuremberg judgment, encoded into international law, is sharp and clear. Aggression is the 'supreme international crime,' differing from others in that it encompasses all the evil that follows; all the evil. The US-UK invasion of Iraq is a textbook example of aggression, as defined by US Justice Robert Jackson in opening the Tribunal, also encoded into international law. Justice Jackson's final words were also sharp and clear. We are handing those convicted at Nuremberg a "poisoned chalice," and if we sip from it, we must be judged by the same principles, or else the proceedings are no more than farce. One prime responsibility of an aggressor is to hold the perpetrators accountable. If state power is unwilling to meet this responsibility, it falls to others to do so: to the citizens of the country carrying out the crimes, more than any others."

--Professor Noam Chomsky

For those interested, I'd also check out the status of the Lt. Ehren Watada trial
http://thankyoult.live.radicaldesigns.org/content/view/206/

Seems as if the government doesn't want his defence to be able to argue legality at all. I wonder what they're afraid of.

Mr. Vail - Thanks for that reply. I certainly will take a look at your book. And I'm sorry if I got the bias / agenda wrong. I'll check it out. I will also give you a warm welcome because its especially valuable to be able to discuss these issues with the broadest possible grouping of opinion. I did check out some of your writing and found it very thoughtful. I just want to make the point that the human suffering in Iraq is something not often brought up on this site, and I think its important to remember that dimension, and come to some understanding of all of our complicity and the connection to our level of consumption. I'll look forward to your articles and the chance to respond.

I am an ardent opponent of the war and of the empire that wages it. I am not an opponent of the nation in which the empire is based any more than those who opposed Hitler were (necessarily) anti-German. However, I have close friends who very much disagree with me on all this. Moreover, I respect their opinion on various other issues no matter how strongly we might disagree on the empire project.

Likewise, the TOD is not an anti-war or anti-empire site even though there might be a lot of that kind of sentiment here. There is no reason to exclude someone for their views on the Iraq war if they can bring something to the party on the issue that is central to TOD. People with expertise, or just interest in PO, range all over the political map. That has to be reflected in TOD.

Mr. Vail,

Would you mind giving me a source for the Noam Chomsky review.
I followed your link :

positively reviewed by Noam Chomsky, John Zerzan, and Daniel Quinn.

And found the lonely and solitary word "Fascinating", I am sure Mr. Chomsky said more? I would like to see what context this positive review of "fascinating" was used.

As well on a quick scan of the positive review:

"Fascinating"

--Noam Chomsky, author of Hegemony or Survival, described by the New York Times as "arguably the most important intellectual alive."

on that quick reading, I would get the idea that this fascinating book was written by "arguably the most important intellectual alive"

I would think that this sort of self promotion a reason to be wary of your opinions.