Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ... 13  Next

Why does everything need to fall under one single global authority with you? But here is your favourite foriegn policy country http://www.fas.org/man/crs/crs-sanction.htm

Instead of arguing over legalities, economic implecations are also detterants to war am I right?

   

Correct . Countries use they're strenghts to achieve they're goals .For some that is military might for others it is the power of Economies .Look at the Arab oil producers .As much as the US are open to using the Military economic and financial war can bring about the same results.I hate to admit it but you gotta give the Yanks a big thumbs up for looking after number 1.

   

That's U.S. law. It's not international law.



Because my point is, there is no source that can promulgate international law.

There is no international legislature. You can't say the U.N. because the U.N. doesn't have the authority to impose law on anyone.

I think the only international agreement with any provision for enforcement, (that is, binds the signatory countries to accept enforcement from an international force), is the combined European Union treaties.

(Which is one of the main reasons why the E.U. is unique.)



Deterrents to war, yes.

(But that does not equal "international law.")

Look, I'm not trying to trip you up over 'legalities', but if someone says "Country X can't do that, it's against international law." My only point is that that isn't saying very much.

If Canada invaded the U.S. and took Milwaukee, that would be against international law. But so what? If the United States doesn't do anything about it, Canada has Milwaukee. It's not like Canada would have to pay a fine for doing it.




.

   

[/quote] And by your definition are we not all cowards for letting 18,000 children a day die of hunger? [/quote]

Yep. We are.

And what do you do when the children are in North Korea and a petulent dictator says you'll feed them only over his dead body?

Hmmm?

Gee, you can go to war and save the children or rest comfortably at home and know that your pacifism is highly valued by these same children as they starve to death.

On another thread the USA was criticized for its pacifism during WW1 that kept it out of the war until the endgame. The USA entering that war hastened the end of the war and brought about peace.

A soldier at Normandy was quoted as saying that the fastest way for him to go home was to go to Berlin.

Sometimes pacifism is not the answer.

   

I agree, Peter, pacifism is not always the answer.

I'm sure you were referring to the general case, and not me, but just for the sake of clarification I am neither a pacifist nor a warmonger. I believe that if it can be shown to be in Canada's interest to fight, we should fight. Otherswise we should stay at peace. I didn't really see Canada's interest in Iraq, so I supprted our decision to stay out.

Time will tell -- if Iraq is a functioning democarcy in two years, I will have to admit I was wrong. If it decends to civil strife then that will supprt my original contetnion.

To tell you the truth I hope I'm wrong and Iraq is a functioning democarcy in two years.

   

Ok I see your point, with which I don't agree at all with. Yes I know people with the power can be a power and I know what your saying, whats to stop these powers from doing anything and that international law means nothing . Ok, then what IS stopping these powers from ABUSING their powers? and dont use the U.S as an example. If its not International law which you say, what is it?

   

Well, you're right, all the informal 'diplomatic' pressures DO work, and a network of interlocking agreements, et c., et c.

Actually, probably the biggest deterrent to endless war is that it's too much of a hassle to be at war with all your neighbors all the time. --- If the people of small country X stay where they are and do their thing, there isn't much reason for them to go and bother the people of Y.

Or, to create a concrete example : why would Ecuador bother to invade Peru?
It's the same deal there, just slightly further south.

Also true for individuals. No one wants to be arrested and thrown in jail; but even more basic, a life of crime is a lot of work, and it's just easier to get a day job.






.

   

It isn't in the interest of the US to get involved between Denmark & Canada in Baffin Bay. But let's say diplomacy fails and shots get fired. I will advocate the US intervening militarily if needed to protect Canadian interests not because the USA cares a damn about icy little islands in the bum f**k north but because Canada is our friend & neighbor.

No shit: Denmark is going to get in world of hurt if they mess with Canada. The US will inevitably guarantee recognized and legitimate Candian claims over Danish johnny-come-lately crap.

   

Err hate to jump in your guys' debate but doenst the U.S have a stake in the Northern Islands as well?

   

Germany wasn't stable for four years after the war so I expect about the same in Iraq as it transitions from a totalitarian state to a free state.

Anyone who is sane is a pacifist...up to a point. I think that describes you, me, and most everyone on this thread. We just disagree on where you draw the line.

   

Um, let's see: no oil, the US doesn't care much for baby seals, we got Indians so we don't need Eskimos, don't need icebergs.

Nope, nothing there that we give a shit about besides a Canadian flag that should be flying there instead of a Danish flag that looks remarkably like a target reticle.

   

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=\Pentagon\archive\200208\PEN20020812a.html

Dont be to sure about Americans protecting the Canadian flag just yet.

   

That looks like the kind of problem that can be solved with the appropriate application of cash.





.

   

If Canada realy thought the Danes were a threat they would respond accordingly. But they don't see a need to go into American mode. You know, give me a chance to blow someone into oblivion. Canada actually believes war is a last, last resort.

   

If the US is asserting that Canada's rights to restrict navigation end at the internationally recognized twelve mile limit then maybe the US does have a valid argument that freedom of the seas (a long standing principle) should be asserted in the area. If the US is asserting a right to close in within the 12 mile limit then the Hague will laugh at the US since the US itself asserts the 12 mile limit. As I look at a map of the passage in question off of Baffin Bay I do see that a very narrow sea lane could indeed be asserted as the channel is sufficiently wide to allow a ship to pass without approaching Canadian territory within 12 nautical miles.

No where in this is the US asserting any territorial claims so I'm looking at a right of passage and freedom of the seas issue.

A similar issue would be the Straits of Magellan where Chile and Argentina CLEARLY own the land yet the Strait itself is used by any nation that wants to use it and perhaps the US wants to assert this principle.

Considering it is something that JUST the US wants the US should follow Reagan's lead and ask for permission instead of being an ass about it.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ... 13  Next