Iraqi death toll

[Earthborn]

If you don't understand the concept of sovereignty, we can't talk much more.

I'm not sure I understand your concept of souvereignty. Surely you can explain it.

Isn't it true that by forming the UN, souvereign states have given up some of their souvereignty by forming common agreed standards?

 

[Gregor]

not really

First, there is no common treaty on military action. Complete sovereign reigns.

Second, nations can withdraw from any treaty, any time. That's what sovereignty means. That's different that individuals chosing to ignore a national law - something they cannot do.

 

[Frostbite]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraqi death toll

What illegal war?

Invading a lesser country without the approval of the UN.

 

[Earthborn]

Second, nations can withdraw from any treaty, any time. That's what sovereignty means. That's different that individuals chosing to ignore a national law - something they cannot do.

Okay. I get it. Do you believe that is a good thing? Isn't a treaty meant to be a contract: by signing it you commit yourself to something. Don't you think that breaking such a contract when it suits you is ultimately dishonest?

 

[Cain]

M. Cain

Obviously, you are ignorant of the terms "illegal" and "war" - and I don't mean that as an ad hominem attack, "ignorant" in the sense of "not knowing" the definition. Such statements are Hollywood sound-bite platitudes without substance.

Legal systems require a (i) closed group, (ii) with common standards of conduct, (iii) that are agreed (or adopted) by everyone in the group, and (iv) the violation of which can be adjudicated and punished by a government that is separate from and controlling over the group.

By definition, two sovereign (catch that key word, there) countries are open groups, without common, agreed standards, with no supreme executive above them.

"War" by sovereign states is contrary to almost all terms of "legal."

Even the United States recognizes the existence of International Law (though we don't actually have to obey it. There are different rules for a superpower). So to take one example, you would not consider our actions in Nicaruaga "illegal", right? The International Court of Justice might hand down a 15-1 ruling, but since it has no effective enforcement power (not against a superpower), the US's actions cannot be construed as illegal.... ?

This goes back to moral relativism and the failure to adhere to an elementary moral principle: if it's wrong for you, then it's wrong for me. By virtue of our power, your silly argument goes, we're "above the law" (indeed, what law?). Of course *we* can violate criteria ii) and iv) with impunity, but this does not mean a framework for international law doesn't exist.

If the United States continues to invoke international law (Saddam has violated U.N. resolutions), then the principle of reciprocation applies (refer again to Nicaragua vs. United States (1984)). If the U.S. came out and explicitly said, "look, all this international law stuff is bullsh*t, and we're not going along with it," then of course we would not be violating any laws.

We *claim* allegiance to international law, but violate it anyway. Our actions in Iraq are illegal (indisputably so)... and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraqi death toll

Invading a lesser country without the approval of the UN.

We had the approval. Remember 1441?

Even it was "illegal", so what!! No one has the balls or the will to do anything about it.

 

[Tricky]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraqi death toll

We had the approval. Remember 1441?

Even it was "illegal", so what!! No one has the balls or the will to do anything about it.

So you simultaneously proclaim that "the law is on our side" and "the law doesn't matter"? Sheesh!

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraqi death toll

So you simultaneously proclaim that "the law is on our side" and "the law doesn't matter"?

Thats exactly what I was saying. International law only matters to the people that think it matters, it has no real bering in reality (if it did, iraq wouldnt have been able to violate it for 12 years). Bush knew this, thats why he went to the UN in the first place, to gain the support of people that put stock in the UN as a governing body.

 

[Frostbite]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraqi death toll

We had the approval. Remember 1441?

Even it was "illegal", so what!! No one has the balls or the will to do anything about it.

Well yeah, it makes sense. But the Iraqi government did disarm, and the US and UK went ahead and invaded the country anyway. It's true there really was no other way to proceed, but at least now that we know the Iraqi government do not possess weapons of mass destruction, perhaps the US and UK troups should retire and leave the country alone?

And, if no one has the balls or the wills to do anything about it, does it still mean that any country can lash out and invade lesser countries because they're doing it in the name of "freedom" and "justice"? If other countries pull off stunts like that, the world's gonna become a god damn jungle.

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraqi death toll

..perhaps the US and UK troups should retire and leave the country alone?

Do you want another muslim theocracy? Isnt the fact that the US left afghanistan alone after the Soviet war a point of criticism for some? I guess we're damned if we do and damned if we dont.

And, if no one has the balls or the wills to do anything about it, does it still mean that any country can lash out and invade lesser countries because they're doing it in the name of "freedom" and "justice"?

Yes, it still means any country can lash out and invade lesser countries....blah blah blah. It may not be moral or "legal", but that's the way it is.

If other countries pull off stunts like that, the world's gonna become a god damn jungle.

Its not already?