Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 ... 13  Next

The University of Toronto link. In the report they say that Iraq does not "currently" have wmds. Yes they say Sadam did have them but the economic and military sanctions had effectively disarmed him. They even allowed in the report that even if he had biological or nuclear weapons he had no way to launch them.
No these educators did not acknowledge that there were weapons of mass destruction. Especially in the sense you try to allude.

   

Dude. That was excellent.

   

There WAS a worldwide consensus up until the US got ready to go in and clean house. Only THEN did the weenies decide they had doubts.

Hans Blix had said on video (I remember seeing it) that Iraq was "definitely" producing these weapons at one point. It seems to me that a whole bunch of people OUTSIDE of the USA should have been more careful about crying 'wolf' because the wolf-killer listened to them.

   

Zipperfish,
Opposing war can be an aspect of a disregard for peace. The world did not fight a war in Rwanda but no one can dispute that this lack of action was a disregard for peace.

War is to be avoided. At all costs.

But when innocent people are being slaughtered to sit idly by is not an act of peace. It is an act of cowardice at the least and an act of complicity at the worst.

Inaction can sometimes be the most heinous form of hostility.

   

As much as I hate war I'll go along with that. So if that is the premise for the war in Iraq, then when everyone leaves, the entire oil industry is left entirely in Iraqi control and ownership, right.

   

That's EXACTLY what I am saying. Geez, you should read what I'm writing.



Nothing.

That's my point.

Do you think if France thought that it's national interests could best be served by attacking England, that they'd stop and say, "Oh, wait, we can't attack them, there's a treaty we signed with them a century ago?"

No. They'd launch their pathetic little navy and worry about the paperwork later.



That's what I said. (Read the damn post before attacking it.) Do you think China is going to give a damn about international agreements when it decides enough is enough with Taiwan? --- Or if it does hold off and not invade, it's solely because it CHOOSES to follow international agreements, not because it HAS to.

Get the difference?

Every state is a sovereign actor. "Sovereign" means, roughly speaking, "can do what it wants to".



I have no idea what this means.



Sparky, the U.S. & Taiwan have a mutual defense treaty. That's why the Chinese army hasn't crossed the Taiwan Strait.

Sorry your ass fell off.



In the 1820's the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against President Jackson in a land dispute in Georgia. Jackson responded, "The day the Supreme Court has 20,000 troops in Georgia, I'll give a damn what they think."

So, too, the U.N.

International relations ARE anarchic. Get used to it.

(How do you think all this shit happens if nations are constrained by law?)




.

   

Damn skippy. When the US gets out the last thing I want to hear of is one of our freaking oil companies running everything. But then don't expect the US to sit idly by while the French and Russians try to insinuate themselves back in. Iraq for Iraqis controlled by Iraqis.

Or the whole thing is a sham and the White House will answer to some ANGRY Americans.

   

No kidding. LIBYA chaired the UN Human Rights council!

   

Sure guy, your basing all your theories on U.S foreign policy. You are not working out all the factors here. Basically, you are forgetting one important thing, the economy. You can have the most powerful military to do what they want but unless the economy plays some role in it, your military is basically useless. Why do you think China hasent attacked Taiwan? Its sure as hell not because of the U.S, its the International stage and the economic implecations that come with it. France attacking England was just an example and France would NOT attack Britain if it was in their best interest buddy, last time I checked the Middle Ages was long and over with because thats what you seem to view the world.


In the 1820's the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against President Jackson in a land dispute in Georgia. Jackson responded, "The day the Supreme Court has 20,000 troops in Georgia, I'll give a damn what they think."

As for this, what does this prove? U.S can do whatever they want? Yes you proved that explicity already. It also goes along with your U.S foreign policy. It is also the 21 century by my reckoning and imperialism and conquest are long over. Go look up Henry Kissenger my friend, he seems to like you.


Sparky, the U.S. & Taiwan have a mutual defense treaty. That's why the Chinese army hasn't crossed the Taiwan Strait.

Yep, its all because of the U.S right? No economic implecations? Nothing else? Just U.S Taiwan mutual defence treaty?You also seemed to have contradicted youself because according to you, treaties do not exist because countries have the power to do anything so why should this treaty even be called a treaty? Do you know what a treaty is? Doesnt sound like it. And again you emphasize the U.S, cant you put another country down?A treaty is a binding agreement under international law concluded by subjects of international law, namely states and international organizations. Treaties can be called by many names: treaties, international agreements, protocols, covenants, conventions, exchanges of letters, exchanges of notes, etc.; however all of these are equally treaties, and the rules are the same regardless of what the treaty is called.reaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held legally liable for that breach.

But of course treaties dont apply because people can do whatever they want so treaties are void either way right?

Ok fine maybe I goofed on the U.N and your right it IS useless as an institution.

   

Those were examples. There aren't any Canadian ones.



How'd it get to be MY military?

Yes, there are economic considerations, blah, blah, blah. But there is no real LEGAL restraint, which is what we're talking about.



And an unequivocal nuclear threat from the United States.

(Look, this is just a plain statement of the U.S.-China-Taiwan situation, you can look it up anywhere, and I don't want to get bogged down in the details of a minor example).



???? It was your hypothetical, don't blame me if it seems antique to you now.

Why the hell wouldn't they? It's the national interest of France. What would stop them?

And don't fall back on 'economic factors' or 'international stage' nonsense, that's already been factored in when France figures overall, it's in the national interest.

So, all factors balanced, it's in France's national interest. What's stopping them? Clause X of the U.N. Charter? That stops them?



Sure. I'm the unrealistic one.






.

   

Actually it is an act of peace to sit idly by when others are slaughtered. It may not be right, but it is definitely peaceful. Let's not let rhetoric warp definitions here: war means force; peace means non-violence. It is never peaceful to go to war. They are mutually exclusive.

And by your definition are we not all cowards for letting 18,000 children a day die of hunger? Are we not morally complicit in their deaths by your definition? They may not be dying from gunshot wounds, but they are dying in large part directly because of policies of their own governments, and indirectly because of the policies of ours. That scale of death is orders of magnitude greater than anything Saddam perpetrated. Many of these children could be saved without the incidental killing of tens of thousands of civilians that war necessitates.

The fact is that Saddam was a banal dictator. There was nothing much special about him at all, either in the number he killed, or the way he killed them. He was no monster, he wa a commonplace thug, examples of which can be found easily elsewhere. That's not to excuse him, but the obvious first question I ask is why him? Why not Congo, Cote d"Ivoire, China, Zimbabwe, Columbia, Sudan? The answer is, what was the US interest?

It is much more enlightening to view wars from the aspect of intersts, not morals. So my question is not if the US was moral to ivade Iraq, but what was the US interest in invading Iraq?

   

So instead of reviewing those factors you just toss them out the window? Sounds like something a U.S congressman would do. Yah blah blah blah about Economic implecations, nice DODGE!! Yes you are unrealistic. Whats to stop governments from doing all that? People maybe.. Vietnam was is a perfect example.

Yes, there are economic considerations, blah, blah, blah. But there is no real LEGAL restraint, which is what we're talking about.

Economic Sanctions ARE legal, Embargos ARE legal, Tariffs ARE legal...list goes on sir.

   

What dodge?

This is what I wrote...



No dodge.


Look, I'm not arguing for war, I'm not saying that this war or that war is moral or ethical. I'm not saying that economic or social or political factors shouldn't weigh heavily in *determining* what the national interest is.

Where this started, and what I am saying is, "international law" is more myth than anything else.

(And, true, even myths can effectively stop people from doing things.)

I hear people discussing international law quite a bit. And it's easy after a while to assume that a category in your head has actual, real, tangible existence. ---But it's important to remember that some things just exist in your head, and at least other people may not share those same ideas.

September 11th was against international law, too. (Fits in the category of extrajudicial killing.) That didn't stop them.






.

   

No, they're not. There's no law that authorizes embargoes.

There's no law that authorizes economic sanctions.

The only law that authorizes tariffs are each countries' domestic law.








.

   

Okay, let's take it from the other direction.

What sovereign global authority wrote a law that specified that economic sanctions are legal?










.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 ... 13  Next