BBC Poll in Iraq

[Tony]

Nice idea, but since we got this international law thing that all our countries signed up to, entirely wrong.

That's what I thought, the old "international law" bullsh!t. Sorry, international "law" is a failure, hardly worthy of respect or consideration.

That said, there have only been two "wars" sanctioned by international "law", can you guess which ones?

 

[Tony]

Start off asking which other countries have the right to decide who runs the USA, UK or Spain and under what conditions they might have the right.

Those other countrues would have that right once they conquered the USA, UK or Spain wouldn't they?


Im perplexed how some can get so upset that the "rights" of Saddam Hussien to oppress millions of people were violated.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

It's not? Says who?

(Tony logic) Says me. (/Tony logic)

 

[iain]

That's what I thought, the old "international law" bullsh!t. Sorry, international "law" is a failure inept, hardly worthy of respect or consideration.

That said, there have only been two "wars" sanctioned by international "law", can you guess which ones?

I'm not sure how your personal opinion of a given legal system, which your own country has signed up to and supports, makes the slightest difference as to its application.

Your argument, I guess goes something like this
1. The USA signs up to a legal system
2. USA breaks law of that legal system
3. Tony thinks that legal system is inept and a failure
4. Therefore, legal system no longer applies to the USA.

 

[Grammatron]

Nice idea, but since we got this international law thing that all our countries signed up to, entirely wrong.

Then surely there must a charge based on this "international law thing" USA is facing because of that? Which court is USA being sued in based on its illegal actions?

 

[rikzilla]

I'll give you a clue. Start off asking which other countries have the right to decide who runs the USA, UK or Spain and under what conditions they might have the right.

Ok,...name any country. Any one will do.

How 'bout Afghanistan? Let's say the US, UK, and Spain are supporting murderous terrorists who have declared that any Afghani was a target of their jihad. Then let's say the US UK and Spain helped their "guests" to murder 3,000 Afghanies in a single day....further let's argue that Afghanistan is one of the world's most powerful industrialized nations and the US, UK, and Spain are relatively powerless and desolate.

Done.


-z

 

[rikzilla]

Nice idea, but since we got this international law thing that all our countries signed up to, entirely wrong.

What international law? Please quote the specific law/laws and how they were broken....you'll also need to show how the US has agreed to be held to such laws.

-z

 

[Tony]

I'm not sure how your personal opinion of a given legal system, which your own country has signed up to and supports, makes the slightest difference as to its application.

Im not saying that. I'm saying that since international law has shown to be a failure, it should be discared as the waste it is.

4. Therefore, legal system no longer applies to the USA.

Pretty much. Since the US broke this "law" I guess I should expect some kind of action taken against the US? I won't hold my breath.

 

[rikzilla]

I'm not sure how your personal opinion of a given legal system, which your own country has signed up to and supports, makes the slightest difference as to its application.

Your argument, I guess goes something like this
1. The USA signs up to a legal system
2. USA breaks law of that legal system
3. Tony thinks that legal system is inept and a failure
4. Therefore, legal system no longer applies to the USA.

What law???

If you want to be a lawyer, you'd better start citing actual law instead of what some people may be telling you about "international law".

Remember, most actual "international law" is merely trade law.

-z

 

[crackmonkey]

When was this 'law' enacted? I'm curious to know specifically - in the last 20 years or so, at least - which wars were legal and which weren't, and why. I've heard the 'Iraq war was illegal' ad nauseum, but I've yet to hear an example of a legal war.

 

[rikzilla]

When was this 'law' enacted? I'm curious to know specifically - in the last 20 years or so, at least - which wars were legal and which weren't, and why. I've heard the 'Iraq war was illegal' ad nauseum, but I've yet to hear an example of a legal war.

exactly.

 

[Tony]

but I've yet to hear an example of a legal war.

Hey crackmonkey,

The Korean "War" and the first Gulf War were the only 2 wars in history to have UN authorization. I guess that means that pretty much every other war was illegal (but it only really matters if the the US was involved).

 

[epepke]

Nice idea, but since we got this international law thing that all our countries signed up to, entirely wrong.

I was against the invasion of Iraq, but despite my personal dislike for it, I have to point out that according to this international law thing that all our countries signed up to, a state of war has existed continuously with respect to Iraq since Desert Storm.

The only thing that happened was that there was a ceasefire agreement. This is not the same thing legally as a state of peace.

Now, morally or practically or whatever one may decide that it was wrong or stupid to invade Iraq. But legally under this international law thingie, it was a resumption of hostilities after the breakdown of a ceasefire agreement.

If the UN had brokered a peace agreement with respect to Iraq rather than a ceasefire agreement, then the invasion would have clearly been illegal according to international law. But they didn't. It was a ceasefire agreement. And since the UN itself, in various resolutions over the years, acknowledges that Iraq broke the ceasefire agreement, a resumption of hostilities is legal.

 

[iain]

If you want to be a lawyer, you'd better start citing actual law instead of what some people may be telling you about "international law".

Luckily I don't want to be a lawyer; but thanks for the career advice.

 

[iain]

Hey crackmonkey,

The Korean "War" and the first Gulf War were the only 2 wars in history to have UN authorization.

I take it that answers your question, crackmonkey.

 

[patnray]

An illustration of Mr. M's worldview in action:

5 houses are on fire in Mr. Manifesto's neighborhood. One truckload of courageous firemen show up and attempt to put out a fire.

"You can't do that!" Says MM, "What about all those other houses? They'll still be burning!" The fire chief replies, "Yeah? Well when we're done here, we'll see about the others. We've only got one truck you know!"

"Well why THAT house? Why not put out the 5 alarm fire down the street first?"

"Well like I said, we have one truck...one truck can't tackle that fire...but we can put out THIS one."

A more accurate analogy would be that the firetruck pulls up and starts spraying water on a house that is not on fire because there were rumors that the owner of that house had matches and had been known to start fires in the past...

 

[Tony]

A more accurate analogy would be that the firetruck pulls up and starts spraying water on a house that is not on fire because there were rumors that the owner of that house had matches and had been known to start fires in the past...

So you contest the fact that Saddam Hussien was a brutal dictator?

 

[iain]

further let's argue that Afghanistan is one of the world's most powerful industrialized nations and the US, UK, and Spain are relatively powerless and desolate.

You seem to be confusing right and might. If you are correct that an impoverished Afghanistan should have the right to attack a wealthy Spain, US and UK, though presumably not the ability.

 

[crackmonkey]

So, then, 'illegal' wars are the norm as opposed to the exception. Why the disingenuous, self-righteous tut-tutting about the 'illegality' of Iraq when most every war has been equally as 'illegal'?
Why wasn't Clinton decried as war criminal for the Balkans war in the same way Bush has been pilloried for Iraq? Why wasn;t Bush 1 hailed as righteous for kicking Iraq out of Kuwait with the UN's blessing... if you remember, the left was screaming about 'blood for oil' and such.

 

[iain]

So you contest the fact that Saddam Hussien was a brutal dictator?

Tony,
If you actually think back to what was happening prior to the war, few people were arguing that under no circumstances should Iraq be overthrown. Whilst it is an interesting new idea in international affairs that governments should be overthrown because they are run by brutal dictators, it is one I have a lot of sympathy with.

The issue with the war was the way in which it was done. Countries like France and Germany wanted to take longer and build an international consensus; maybe give more time for Saddam to be forced from power peacefully (and none of us really know what would have happened). Saddam was contained and, whilst he wasn't a nice guy, no one was suggested that he was about to launch the sort of attacks on his own people or neighbours that had been seen in the '80s and early '90s - a decade earlier.

The coalition argument was that because of the imminent threat from WMDs, it wasn't possible to wait and the war had to be then. Of course, we now know this wasn't correct, but I won't claim to know whether the various players believed what they were saying.

My own view is that if there had been a delay for a few more months to build that international basis for support, it would probably have worked out better overall.

Remember that if $100 billion had not been spent on Iraq, it could have been spent on improving the lives of people in other countries - people who are suffering now as much as they were a year ago.