Iraq war was 'immoral', says Tutu

[dArKeR]

Mike Ramsey | Flint, Michigan

The United States can benefit from researching and acknowledging past atrocities committed against blacks and American Indians, said South African Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

"There is a pain that sits in the tummy of most African Americans and Native Americans, and maybe white Americans, that needs to be articulated in a non-threatening environment," Tutu said during lecture sponsored by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation on Wednesday.

Tutu (72) the former Anglican Archbishop of South Africa, was on the country's Truth in Reconciliation Commission, which researched 34 years of human rights violations against blacks under apartheid.

http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.asp?ao=67656

[GreenArrow]

1. Tutu misses something

Speaking later to reporters, Tutu addressed the war in Iraq, calling it "immoral" for the United States and its allies to invade the country without the support of the United Nations.

"Almost everything that has happened since then has confirmed that," said Tutu, who also questioned whether Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein. - Sapa-AP

--- --- ---

The war would have been immoral even if there had been United Nations support.

[Voltaire99]

6. Exactly - bravo, GreenArrow.

The UN is a fig leaf for the more polite brand of imperialist (yes, John Kerry is one).

[gratuitous]

11. No, Tutu has it right on the money

At his scripted pre-war press conference, W. made one hard promise: That he would go to the UN Security Council for a second vote on the Iraq invasion. Instead, when it became apparent that not only would the action be vetoed by France and probably Russia, but that he wouldn't get even a majority of votes on the Security Council, Bush amped up the rhetoric, sent in the bombers, praised the Lord and started handing out the ammunition.

Now, I won't go so far as to say that Tutu is recalling that broken promise, but it wouldn't surprise me if he is. He has a keen mind, and a firm grasp of the details: His labeling of Bush's invasion of immoral would be sufficient by itself. The fact that he went further with a wholly unnecessary qualifier (without the support of the United Nations), indicates to me that he's making reference to just that.

[beavus]

2. John Kerry disagrees with you, Tutu

the war was justified and absolutely neccesary but just "managed poorly" according to Kerry.

[Rainbowreflect]

3. Welcome to DU.

I don't think that is what Kerry believes, but if it is he is wrong.

[cliss]

4. Hi, B.

Welcome to the DU!! :toast:

Nice post, and I agree with you. We all do.

:smoke:

[beavus]

5. thanks friends

:hi:

[0007]

10. Speak for yourself not for me, 'eh?

[Voltaire99]

7. Kerry's Iraq position is rancid

Conveniently for election purposes, Kerry wishes to take refuge in technocratic criticism. Sure, the war has been managed poorly. But that's hardly the issue.

Iraq posed no threat to the US or its allies. That has always been strike one.

The US invasion has slaughtered civilians (between 9k-11k, according to Iraqbodycount.net), while destroying civil Iraq, plunging the economy into chaos, and installing a puppet leadership. That's strike two.

The US invasion has damaged our international alliances, provoked greater hatred likely to increase terrorism, and thus imperiled our security. Strike three.

John Kerry, you're out. Time to start thinking outside of your DLC box.

[Just Me]

8. I love Tutu.

I really do.

[Malva Zebrina]

9. Oh I agreed with them all who said it was immoral.

but what do I know? I am an atheist with some peculiar bedfellows it seems.