Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Countrydave55

Lebanon

Recommended Posts

OK THEN! :P

 

So the law is not absolute. ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

For me the whole idea of the legality or illegality of war is flawed as I have stated in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK THEN! 

 

So the law is not absolute.

But we have to treat it as though it is or there is no authority. Arguing specific points is one thing, defying the law quite another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we have to treat it as though it is or there is no authority.  Arguing specific points is one thing, defying the law quite another.

But...there is no authority anyway. It is empty and meaningless without authority.

 

 

Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about Lebanon. Another case where you seem to have a one dimensional view.

 

 

 

Yes. This administration would use any incident to implicate Syria.

Somebody else has already confessed to it, dammit.

They didn't implicate Syria. They said that the bombing was evidence of a lack of stability, hence Syrias efforts at stability are not working. They implicated nobody. It is a simple observation that I agree with. The area is not stable.

 

Yet you make a verbal assault claiming they would.....

 

Tell me, did they, or didn't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about Lebanon. Another case where you seem to have a one dimensional view.

Oh right, and I suppose it was me who diverted it. :lol:

 

With regard to the Lebanon assassination, it is very simple to rule Syria out.

 

The assassination has brought diplomatic pressure to bear on Syria, just what they DON'T want, so it weren't them what done it. :lol:

 

Bush has withdraw his ambassador from the wrong country. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fragged one

Bush has withdraw his ambassador from the wrong country. :lol:

you're right, except not a country, but the un.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh right, and I suppose it was me who diverted it. :lol:

 

 

The assassination has brought diplomatic pressure to bear on Syria, just what they DON'T want, so it weren't them what done it. :lol:

 

Bush has withdraw his ambassador from the wrong country. :lol:

moon:

Meanwhile Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, speaking in London, said Iran was just six months away from making a bomb.

 

 

Which doubtless could be launched within 45 minutes. Deja vu, anybody ?

 

Yup! You brought up Israel! :lol:

 

 

With regard to the Lebanon assassination, it is very simple to rule Syria out.

Why talk about ruling out Syria? What was being refered to was the sociopolitical instability and that Syria is failing to manage that, not that Syria actually did the acctack. Don't you get that?

 

It isn't that they did it, it is that they are failing in their endeavor to stabilize the situation. That is what the quote was about and it was right on the money, unlike your creative interpretation of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One2;

 

 

 

An outright lie, One2 ?  I thought you knew me better than that.

Up yours;

 

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/israelborders.php

oh please, you say war is illegal and then back it up by showing the annexation of land from recognized (key) borders is illegal.

 

I dont see how this pertains to war at all. There are many legal wars, there is a long thread about war somewhere here on the pit, its legality and morality. It was fairly interesting and extensive.

 

Wars are nothing more than political arguments on various scales, you win some and lose some but they are not going away.

 

A countries right to defend itself supercedes any and all international law.

 

It is perfectly legal to stop attacks on ones country that originate in another if the parent country is failing to stop the problem. Many wars have in fact been over such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02...h.ap/index.html

 

Bush said he did not know if Syria was involved in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri.

 

"I can't tell you yet," Bush said. "I don't know that. I'm going to withhold judgment until we know what the facts are."

He said Syria also must comply with U.N. resolutions calling for it to withdraw from Lebanon.

 

Gee...where is he saying that Syria did it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One2Ramble;

oh please, you say war is illegal and then back it up by showing the annexation of land from recognized (key) borders is illegal.

Don't smokescreen. You said it was a blatant lie. I selected a paragraph by a Professor at Law. If you're a Professor at Law, go argue with him, don't rabbit on about lies.

 

 

'doc;

Why talk about ruling out Syria? What was being refered to was the sociopolitical instability and that Syria is failing to manage that, not that Syria actually did the acctack. Don't you get that?

 

It isn't that they did it, it is that they are failing in their endeavor to stabilize the situation. That is what the quote was about and it was right on the money, unlike your creative interpretation of it.

What I do get is that it's payback time for Syria for assisting in removing Israeli troops from Lebanon, the subject of the thread. You've got a brass neck suggesting that one explosion in Lebanon constitutes 'instability' when explosions in Iraq are in the region of one every hour.

 

As for the UN Resolution on Syria removing troops from Lebanon, troops which up to now are there by request of the Lebanese President because he doesn't want Israeli troops back, how about the many, many UN Resolutions calling for Israel to remove troops from Palestine ? Has America withdrawn her ambassador to Israel ? No. America pours money and arms into Israel despite all those Resolutions. That's hypocrisy, and this administration's foreign policy is full of it.

 

The withdrawal of the American ambassador to Syria is intended to implicate the Syrians in the Lebanese assassination.

Ask yourself who benefits from instability in Lebanon.

Syria ? No

Lebanon ? No

Then ask yourself who doesn't benefit from stability in Lebanon.

 

 

February 2003  Patrick Seale

 

What can ‘refashioning the Middle East’ really mean?

 

Instead of a stable and democratic Middle East in harmony with the US and Israel, one can predict massive loss of life and material destruction in Iraq; the collapse of central government leading to mob rule and vicious killings in many parts of the country; a huge flood of desperate refugees seeking shelter across borders; the drying up of trade, investment and tourism throughout the Middle East, dealing a harsh blow to the fragile economies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and also Israel; a ruthless scramble for Iraq’s oil by the world’s leading governments and oil companies; an upsurge of Islamic and nationalist outrage expressed in a wave of individual attacks on American and British targets, evolving gradually into more organized guerrilla warfare against their occupying armies and against the docile government they may hope to put in place.

 

http://www.mafhoum.com/press4/seale134.htm

 

February 2003. Now that's 'on the money'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What I do get is that it's payback time for Syria for assisting in removing Israeli troops from Lebanon, the subject of the thread. You've got a brass neck suggesting that one explosion in Lebanon constitutes 'instability' when explosions in Iraq are in the region of one every hour.

 

 

Bull. You are implying that I have said Iraq is stable.

 

Lebanon is not stable. Syria does not belong there, never has. Israel does not belong in Palestine, never has.

 

Why do you imply that I do not wish to see Israel withdraw, it should have happened a long time ago.

 

 

I don't care what you think withdrawing the ambassador implies. This is politics, they are playing their cards. There are plenty more reasons than a single bombing for the US to pull the ambassador and you know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bull. You are implying that I have said Iraq is stable.

You're inferring that but I didn't make the implication. You misread to suit.

 

Lebanon + Syria is a lot more stable than Lebanon + Israel. American policy to have Syria withdraw is designed for instablity. I'm afraid that what we have here is an administration hell bent on war in the Middle East. Your administration, that is. I can't change that but I can certainly enjoy pointing it out and adding the proofs as they manifest on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've got a brass neck suggesting that one explosion in Lebanon constitutes 'instability' when explosions in Iraq are in the region of one every hour.

I misread that? :lol: I don't think so.

 

 

Lebanon + Syria is a lot more stable than Lebanon + Israel.

So what? Now you are happy to make exceptions for countries violating borders? Let us go back to the international law you always want to default to. :rolleyes:

 

 

So the Bush Administration (it is his not mine to be sure) is hell bent on war in the Middle East?

 

I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I misread that?  I don't think so.

It's a fact though. I know because I wrote it.

 

 

 

 

So the Bush Administration (it is his not mine to be sure) is hell bent on war in the Middle East?

 

I don't think so.

You are, sadly, wrong.

 

 

We currently have one open front in Iraq, ongoing but not going quite as well as expected. The threat to Israel from Saddam has been neutralised but events may produce a threat of a different nature.

 

Another possible front is Syria, whose presence in Lebanon poses a perceived threat to Israel, not because of aggression but because of opposition to expansionism. The 'diplomatic' groundwork is being laid for possible military action.

 

A second possible front is Iran, perceived as a threat to Israel whether or not her nuclear industry is civil or military, again the threat is from opposition as opposed to aggression. The diplomatic groundwork is being laid for possible military action.

( Russia is offering arms and technology to both in an attempt to warn Bush off)

 

Then there's Israel herself, promised support from Bush in pursuing a policy of expansionism which is already internationally condemned. America's waning credibility as a peace broker should evaporate entirely as the ramifications of this support unfold during Palestinian/Israeli negotiations.

 

Britain is out of the running as a potential supporter. No British government would survive joining another American-led invasion of the Middle East. European opposition to further American intrusion is already immense and , again, there will be no UN Security Council mandate for America's tabled resolutions for military action.

 

You don't think that's being hell bent on war. 'doc ? OK, we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a fact though. I know because I wrote it.

 

 

 

 

 

You are, sadly, wrong. I'll highlight events as they unfold, a distasteful chore but better than doing nothing.

OK then, what exactly does this mean if not what I said?

You've got a brass neck suggesting that one explosion in Lebanon constitutes 'instability' when explosions in Iraq are in the region of one every hour.

It suggests that I am somehow implying that Iraq is stable, hence I have a "brass neck" pointing to any instability in Lebanon. If not, then what does it mean?

 

 

 

I'm wrong? OK, but no need to highlight any events except a war, and you will hardly need to highlight it if it happens. You can point it out if it happens, but even then you will have to substantiate "hell bent on war". Then again if you want to let us know what these preparations for war are right now, please point them out. But they won't be valid unless there actually is a war resulting....and by when?

 

 

If the US were hell bent on war anywhere it could bring war withing days, no problem. But it would seem that there are some schemes at work that you have identified that will take some time.

 

Why wait to point them out? If you have identified them please point them out so we can be forwarned.

 

It seems that Lebanon is part of the scheme. Did the US stage the bombing?

 

What is the time frame anyway? I mean, if you are saying they are hell bent on war then I assume it should happen within the next four years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't smokescreen. You said it was a blatant lie. I selected a paragraph by a Professor at Law. If you're a Professor at Law, go argue with him, don't rabbit on about lies.

 

I may not be a prof of law but I do have a degree in International Relations. Half my course work was about war and insurgency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may not be a prof of law but I do have a degree in International Relations.

Well then, you mind explaining why the Prof. is a liar and you are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion he is misinterpreting so called international law and has an inadequate knowledge of the international political world. I dont disagree that war solely for land grabbing is in fact illegal under international law BUT war itself is not an illegal action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion he is misinterpreting so called international law and has an inadequate knowledge of the international political world.

He sure looks like a big hitter to me;

 

Anthony D'Amato is the Leighton Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law, where he teaches courses in international law, international human rights, analytic jurisprudence, and justice. Professor D'Amato was the first American lawyer to argue (and win) a case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and he has litigated a number of human rights cases around the world. He is the author of over 20 books and over 110 articles.

 

Let's look again at what he states and which you declare ' a blatant lie' ;

 

9. Overshadowing the arguments in Paragraph 8 above is the undeniable fact that the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, as definitively glossed by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, has abolished forever the idea of acquisition of territory by military conquest. No matter who was the aggressor, international borders cannot change by the process of war. Resort to war is itself illegal, and while self-defense is of course legal, the self-defense cannot go so far as to constitute a new war of aggression all its own.

 

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/israelborders.php

 

Please tell me how, with his 'inadequate knowledge' he has managed to 'misinterpret so called international law'.

Once you've demonstrated that war is legal we can all get off and enjoy some in the light of our new-found virtue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no first-hand experience of the Middle East, and I speak entirely from law books and the documentary record. I am not a Jew. I am not an Arab. In trying to assess my internal biases, I must disclose that I feel a huge debt to the cultural and intellectual enrichment flowing to me from the contributions of Jews: in Broadway musicals (my especial passion), movies, theatre, law, and the philosophy of science. I have also been a steadfast supporter of the State of Israel as it was established, and under the boundaries it was given, on May 15, 1948.

Your esteemed Professor also says:

6. Although Israel proclaimed itself as a state within six months of Resolution 181, the Palestinians - for convoluted internal reasons plus the land-grabbing ambitions of surrounding Arab states - did not seriously entertain the idea of a State of Palestine for almost another forty years. In any event, as is well known, neighboring Arab states, proclaiming that the United Nations had sold out the Palestinians, attacked Israel. To the world’s astonishment, Israel not only prevailed in the war, but beat back the Arab invaders and in the process more than doubled the previously partitioned territory of Israel. Israel then ousted the Palestinians who were living in the conquered area, and they have ever since been remitted to conditions of squalor in refugee camps that dot the Middle East.

Your persisten stance on the origin and basis for the borders really simply does not absolve Palestine of their sins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said moon in the rest of my post, wars based on a land grab are in fact illegal but that does not make war itslef illegal as YOU posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You don't think that's being hell bent on war. 'doc ? OK, we'll see.

No, I don't.

 

Yes, we will see.

 

Bush insisted that he wants a peaceful, diplomatic solution to the problem and said any talk of a military attack is “just not the truth.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6992154/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said moon in the rest of my post, wars based on a land grab are in fact illegal but that does not make war itslef illegal as YOU posted.

Oh, I get it. My source, a Professor at Law, can state that 'war is illegal' and you have no argument. Then when I quote from him that 'war is illegal' you say that it's a 'blatant lie'.

Is war illegal or isn't it ? If you have an argument which proves the Professor wrong then let's see it, otherwise withdraw your 'lie' nonsense.

 

 

'doc, you're laying red herrings and I ain't hungry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, right, of course...why would anybody be interested in the overt statements of a President who clearly says what he does and does what he says?

 

As I said before we have a strong Lebanese community here and some work in our building, one Lebanese woman works for us. I had a long conversation with her at the end of the day yesterday. It was very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doc,

 

The invasion of Iraq was premised upon the imminent threat to the United States of America of Iraq's putative possesion of weapons of mass destruction. Either that or the president contravened the Constitution of the United States of America and conducted an illegal police action against the Iraqi government.

 

The question isn't how he justified it to the American people but how he justified it to the American Congress and whether they colluded with him.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doc,

 

The invasion of Iraq was premised upon the imminent threat to the United States of America of Iraq's putative possesion of weapons of mass destruction. Either that or the president contravened the Constitution of the United States of America and conducted an illegal police action against the Iraqi government.

 

The question isn't how he justified it to the American people but how he justified it to the American Congress and whether they colluded with him.

 

I

No, I don't believe that is the question at hand, nor is it a question in general, at least not for me.

 

That matter is already very clear to me and I am comfortable that the reasoning presented to the people, to the UN, and to Congress has been satisfied.

 

 

The invasion of Iraq was premised upon the imminent threat to the United States of America of Iraq's putative possesion of weapons of mass destruction.

That is the rumor, however I don't buy it.

 

The invasion of Iraq was premised upon the imminent threat to anybody based upon their defiance and manipulation of the UN regarding matters of weapons, the fact that their manipulation had the specific intent of allowing them the breathing room to resume their production of prohibited weapons, and the fact that there were for over a decade (and still are) missing stockpiles of weapons. Last but not least is the premise that Iraq supported terrorism whick obviously already had been demonstrated to have the ability to strike on US soil and cause great damage and casualties without any need at all for WMD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...