|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 11:39:42 [Permalink]
|
Can you clarify how you've measure "minority" opinion, please? That would help. Does "minority" = wrong?
We are not far apart here if you're being serious when you say that it should be illegal, however. We both agree that there is something seriously wrong with US/UK conduct.
Also, to clarify, my contention was never to say that all people who break the law should be thrown in the pokey. In fact, my point was exactly the opposite, that people are generally thrown in the pokey because they're poor, etc., etc. The powerful are not thrown in the pokey, and your position that this is "questionable" only seems to side with those that think that the powerful are above the law.
The law is clearly stated. It is a violation of international law to attack another country except to repel an imminent attack.
But, again, I am not promoting the law that we have, I'm just stating that the U.S. does not live by the laws it says it promotes. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 11:53:07 [Permalink]
|
Dude, I'm not sure why you think some small country that's already being brutally victimized by the largest terrorist nation on earth would do something so futile as bring up a complaint into some international kangaroo court. For what? Never heard of the most expensive no vote Yemen ever cast?
I'm sure you always stood right up to bullies, but when the bully is armed like the U.S. is, and IS international law, then why would you bother? Because you want more of your people to live in poverty? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 12/11/2007 11:53:54 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 12:04:13 [Permalink]
|
| I would also say that Iran is not something that creates international law. The U.S. signed an agreement, which makes the UN charter U.S. law. The agreement states that they will not attack other countries. It requires no action from others to keep your agreements. It only requires that you keep your agreements. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 12/11/2007 : 12:25:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
The law is clearly stated. It is a violation of international law to attack another country except to repel an imminent attack. |
And that's the defense the U.S. has made, which is why the legality of the war is less than clear-cut. And I'm not sure how much it'd matter that we know now that Iraq wasn't much of a threat. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 12:28:26 [Permalink]
|
And that's the defense the U.S. has made, which is why the legality of the war is less than clear-cut.
|
Please clarify. The U.S. is saying that they shot down airplanes that were flying towards Washington and then turned the matter over to the U.N.? That is the law. That is what they agreed to. If they don't agree to the UN Charter, they need to pull out, because signing that treaty makes that Charter U.S. law.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 12:34:44 [Permalink]
|
| You know now? Who thought Iraq was a threat to anyone after being carpet bombed for 40 some days and bombed almost weekly for years and sanctioned for years? Who thought that? Hans Blix? Kofi Annan? Who? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 13:13:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
The U.S. is saying that they shot down airplanes that were flying towards Washington and then turned the matter over to the U.N.? That is the law. |
The law actually says that the only time one is allowed to attack another country is when one has shot down aircraft on a heading to one's capital city?! Wait, that's not even attacking another country. If I end the imminent threat like that by shooting down the planes, shouldn't I only turn the matter over to the U.N.? Does the charter actually give me the right to attack my attacker in retaliation before trying diplomacy? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 13:23:19 [Permalink]
|
| There is no right to attack anyone except in defense from an imminent attack. Once the imminent attack is ended, then the matter must be turned over to the U.N. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 19:36:23 [Permalink]
|
The futility of speaking to you is, once again, clear to me. Thanks for the reminder.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 19:50:47 [Permalink]
|
The Caroline incident
Much of the traditional doctrine on self-defence comes from an incident in 1837 near the Niagara Falls, in which a boat called the Caroline was attacked and tipped over the Falls by British forces that moved into American waters from Canada. The boat was being used by Canadian rebels preparing an attack.
Some very elegant diplomatic exchanges between US Secretary of State Daniel Webster and British Foreign Secretary Lord Ashburton led to the acceptance of Webster's principles of pre-emptive self-defence. These held that it was justified only in cases in which the "necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation".
The UN Charter basically adopted that rule, and a highlevel group which looked at UN reform in 2004 said that "Article 51 needs neither extension nor restriction in its long understood scope".
The General Assembly confirmed that view. However there remains some debate about how "imminent" a threat has to be, and how large.
The doctrine of pre-emption has therefore not received widespread international backing. Last year, Chatham House sent a questionnaire about self-defence to 13 international lawyers in Britain. As a result, a number of principles were drawn up to give precision to Webster's phrasing.
These stressed the importance of imminence.
Post-9/11 style pre-emption was not endorsed.
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4754009.stm |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 19:54:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally quoted by Gorgo
However there remains some debate about how "imminent" a threat has to be, and how large. |
So much for it being a cut-and-dried illegal war. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 03:31:36 [Permalink]
|
| What imminent threat was there, Dave? What imminent threat did they remove? Did they they turn the matter over to the U.N. once that imminent threat was removed? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 03:42:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
The futility of speaking to you is, once again, clear to me. Thanks for the reminder.
|
This is amazing, really. The entire thread was about you adding absolutely nothing to our knowledge of the subject, and you being rude and hostile, and I'm the one that gets the warning.
You have yet to clarify your position, and then you leave stomping your feet, and Dave and Kill applaud your performance. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 04:59:29 [Permalink]
|
I think there are really only two things being debated. One is how much the administration lied, not whether they lied.
The other thing that's being debated is not that this was a violation of international law, but whether or not the U.S. can set a precedent in changing international law by example.
Now, the Bush Administration says we must take pre-emptive action against Iraq. But what the Administration is really calling for is preventive war, which flies in the face of international rules of acceptable behavior. The Administration's new National Security Strategy states "As a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed."
The circumstances of today's world require us to rethink this concept. The world changed on September 11th, and all of us have learned that it can be a drastically more dangerous place. The Bush Administration's new National Security Strategy asserts that global realities now legitimize preventive war and make it a strategic necessity.
|
This is about preventing some possible "imminent" (therefore non-imminent) attack. If they wish to change international law by helping to create some legitimate international structures, structures that actually serve the people of the world, then I'm all for it. I'm not tied to the cold war relic that is called international law.
What the U.S. has done by brutally attacking the people of Iraq and Afghanistan for years, is to set an example that might makes right. Nothing else.
Saying there is some legitimate debate about the legality of the war just agrees with the idea that might makes right.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 12/12/2007 05:04:37 |
|
|
 |
|
FYI: Lets Say Thanks
