Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
Funny thing is that you probably are serious when you say you think the rest of the world is jealous at the US......
Well, whatever you want to think!
Invasion right but 'illegal', says US hawk
- Thread starter bobgote
- Start date
Funny thing is that you probably are serious when you say you think the rest of the world is jealous at the US......
Well, whatever you want to think!
I agree, totally, Drew.
In addition, I find it troubling that both sides care nothing for the Iraqi people, but for their own national interests. A lot of people are dying and being hurt. I wish someone was looking out for them.
Also, for what reason should anyone be jealous of the United States? This country is deteriorating, quickly. Our traditions, our principals, the American dream, all of it, soon, will be no more like it had been when our forefathers walked this Earth.
In addition, I find it troubling that both sides care nothing for the Iraqi people, but for their own national interests. A lot of people are dying and being hurt. I wish someone was looking out for them.
Also, for what reason should anyone be jealous of the United States? This country is deteriorating, quickly. Our traditions, our principals, the American dream, all of it, soon, will be no more like it had been when our forefathers walked this Earth.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
International law and the UN are both unworkable and utopian concepts; the bastard children of the Kellog-Briand pact and its starry eyed ilk.
They have proved a failure over their existence, and in a vastly changed world to that of the 1940s and even the Cold War, are even more anachronistic.
If international law is the equivalent of domestic law, where the pursuit of right and justice is set aside in favour of quibbling over irrelevant rules, and the use of them in order to perpetuate injustice, then to the devil with them both. The abuse of international law to allow Hussein to continue to rule and murder is as heinous as the abuse of domestic law to allow murderers, theives and rapists to go free on technicalities and handsomely paid for legalistic argument.
Put them aboard ships of stone with sails of lead, and give them the wrath of God for a breeze and Hell as their first port.
They have proved a failure over their existence, and in a vastly changed world to that of the 1940s and even the Cold War, are even more anachronistic.
If international law is the equivalent of domestic law, where the pursuit of right and justice is set aside in favour of quibbling over irrelevant rules, and the use of them in order to perpetuate injustice, then to the devil with them both. The abuse of international law to allow Hussein to continue to rule and murder is as heinous as the abuse of domestic law to allow murderers, theives and rapists to go free on technicalities and handsomely paid for legalistic argument.
Put them aboard ships of stone with sails of lead, and give them the wrath of God for a breeze and Hell as their first port.
Right on, Pontiuth Pilate: "...campaign to portray international law as the culprit for 'getting in the way' of 'justice'.
As in "Get out of the way, Blix! You bumbling fool, they're only sawing Al-Samoud missiles in half to deceive the world and they must be stopped!" In the way indeed. Hans Blix still isn't allowed back into Iraq. He'd be in the way.
***
International law cannot be understood with an authoritarian mindset. There is no supreme leader. There are no men of action telling us what's what. There are simply contracts. X agrees to do this if Y and Z agree to do that. Like UN membership - a lengthy contract, always expanding. When the US attacked, invaded, occupied Iraq, it sunk a whole raft of contracts it had made very explicitly with other parties, states included. It broke its word with Canada, for example. We don't go pleading Mr. Annan to punish the US - he's no Authority. What we do is note the breech of contract, and remember it when a US ambassador presumes to sign anything.
Perle's arguing that the agreements entered into by his country aren't worth paper. He may be right.
As in "Get out of the way, Blix! You bumbling fool, they're only sawing Al-Samoud missiles in half to deceive the world and they must be stopped!" In the way indeed. Hans Blix still isn't allowed back into Iraq. He'd be in the way.
***
International law cannot be understood with an authoritarian mindset. There is no supreme leader. There are no men of action telling us what's what. There are simply contracts. X agrees to do this if Y and Z agree to do that. Like UN membership - a lengthy contract, always expanding. When the US attacked, invaded, occupied Iraq, it sunk a whole raft of contracts it had made very explicitly with other parties, states included. It broke its word with Canada, for example. We don't go pleading Mr. Annan to punish the US - he's no Authority. What we do is note the breech of contract, and remember it when a US ambassador presumes to sign anything.
Perle's arguing that the agreements entered into by his country aren't worth paper. He may be right.
Drewcifer
Agent of Karma
Like a lightning bolt, sometimes the truth emerges in a flash.
Qitai
.
So What do you propose? No international law? So, whoever has a bigger military is right?
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
No, I do not propose that might be right, not that it is a bad notion as long as we are the mighty. An equitable, workable and flexible system of relations that reflects modern realities and the world of today, rather than the dreams of the 1920s, and does not constrain the forces of right from doing as they must.
That is the way the world is at the moment, we may as well face up to that fact. America can and does impose its will wherever it can, due to its large military presence. Do you think anyone would listen if they decided to disband? After all, how influential is Switzerland in international politics? At the end of the day, a law has be be able to be enforced, otherwise it is irrelevant.
The UN is irrelevant, because nations are not willing to put aside national interests in order to create a better world. If this were not the case, the whole world could have come together and decided that Sadaam Hussain was not fit to run a country and that he should be deposed.
The fact is, this is the only legitimate reason for the US/UK invasion of Iraq, as Bush and Blair now acknowledge, and are trying to use as justification after the event. Of course, if they had tried to go to war on this basis before the event, the British and American public would not have stood for it.
I thought rather that's why the UN is relevant.
***
Switzerland has lots of power, no stern fireworks and no chimpanzine leaping on the world stage, but the kind of power that keeps news from getting made. A country's success may be measured by its lack of news. Yeah I'm posting from Canada.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
By that stretch of the imagination, Ecuador, Guinea-Bisseau and Tuvalu should be world powers and be the Security Council.
Qitai
.
I thought that is why UN is relevant. Without it, every nation will only care about themselves, which in the longer term would result in the breaking down of world order.
As for UN on Iraq. Certainly, it is not the result on one nation having a veto against the notion. If it were, then it is clearly broken. The very idea of veto is indeed outdated. But then, that does not mean UN is broken. We just need to refine the laws.
Or to put it a better way --
" not constrain the forces of right from doing " what they want,
To further the expansion of US military, economic and political power worldwide
no matter the question of morality or the social, environmental costs.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Doing what they must and what they want are very different things; there was no desire to be involved in a totallen krieg, but when in it, it shall be prosecuted until the end.
There are no questions of morality in my view, and social and environmental costs can go hang until the job is done.
There are no questions of morality in my view, and social and environmental costs can go hang until the job is done.
Don't show your ignorance - your country has signed the charters and treaties that found the UN and is bound by the laws that they entail. In fact, US lawyers were central to the drafting process, it's a bit ironic to be compaining about the terms! The US has voluntarily surrendered a degree of its sovereignty.
This is true every single time any country signs any treaty - until such time as that treaty is abrogated it constrains the signatories from acting freely.
A moment's thought would show you that this must be the case, otherwise all treaties are completely useless bits of paper.
So sure, the US can abrogate the UN treaty but until you do you are bound by its terms.
If you are arguing enforcement, that is a different issue - many laws exist which are tough to enforce, it doesn't mean there isn't a law in place.
If this is not the case then there are no constraints on international action, all treaties including the Geneva convention, etc. are invalid and anyone can do what the hell they like governed only by national law.
International anarchy might suit the US given its relative power in the world, maybe China and a few rogue states too, but it sure as hell won't suit the rest of us....
-----
Doing what they must and what they want are very different things;
Correct SD , thou in my opinion taking out SH is hardly number one priority in making the world a better place,
so if it is yours well your other comments can be appreciated
During a conversation I had the other day a friend of mine stated that if the right wing trend in the US continues there's going to be a revolution. I told her that if such a revolution came, the left would lose in very short order because most of them don't even own a gun, let even know how to shoot one.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Everyone else is above the law, too. So why pick on them?
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
If leaving Saddam Hussein alone was "as heinous as the abuse of domestic law to allow murderers, theives and rapists to go free," as Darkshade puts it, then what was the whole point of reopening the inspector regime anyway? Aren't you admitting that it was merely a pretext, and excuse for a war that would have happened even if Hussein had complied absolutely and fully with the inspectors?
Not that that should surprise anyone
Not that that should surprise anyone
Archer 007
Rebirth
Agreed, but why should we exspect others to stick by their word if we dont stand by ours.
Similar threads
