Jump to content

Archived

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

Countrydave55

Lebanon

Recommended Posts

The invasion of Iraq was premised upon the imminent threat to anybody

That's not how I read the American constitution. Neither does Dubya. But if you're willing to negotiate the terms of that document and transfer some of its power to another body, the UN for instance, I'm sure you'd gain an audience.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The premise for the invasion of Iraq is not within the Constitution. The authority for it is.

 

The premise for the invasion of Germany by US forces is equally not in the Constitution. The authority for it is.

 

 

http://www.daveross.com/war.html

 

 

At any rate, as I have said, this is not the question at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I get it. My source, a Professor at Law, can state that 'war is illegal' and you have no argument

Completely Wrong!!

 

GWB and the US said its legal and thats it, case closed.

 

If anyone in the world would like to challenge the US on this, go for it. It would be quite amusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doc,

 

Your link is not a document. It is an interpretation.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have said before the whole idea of the legality of war and international law really does not work. It is a direct contradiction of the sovereignty of nations. Such law simply has no authority. Nations observe such laws when it pleases them, and that's not just the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such law simply has no authority.

thkU doc! for speaking plain

 

I don't disagree with you politically or practically although I have some very heavy moral qualms.

 

Also, I'm curious as to how America reconciles its reliance on the UN to justify its adventure in Iraq in light of that position.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doc,

 

Your link is not a document. It is an interpretation.

 

I

Yes, I know that. I have linked to the actual documents so often it is getting tiresom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thkU doc! for speaking plain

 

I don't disagree with you politically or practically although I have some very heavy moral qualms.

 

Also, I'm curious as to how America reconciles its reliance on the UN to justify its adventure in Iraq in light of that position.

 

I

I believe I have some of the same moral qualms myself. But in practical terms I recognize the way it is, that's all.

 

 

There will be no real international authority as long as nations maintain sovereignty. There simply can't be, unless it is forced by means of arms in which case it is no better than anything else we have seen.

 

 

You are quite right. There would seem to be a conflict in the use of the UN as justification. The UN resolutions are used as justification, no doubt. But those resolutions stand for priciples that would exist with or without them having been put forth by the UN. The fact that they were put forth by the UN and the fact that they were put forth in the way that they were is justification in that I don't believe there would have been such a war if it were not for the UN stance on the matters and the fact that it placed the US in a precarious position because of it.

 

In the end the UN was willing to bend to the will of Saddam and the US was not because the UN had already been very specific and the US wished to stand the ground the UN had built.

 

The fact that the UN was not able to deal with the situation in Iraq is a demonstration of their true lack of authority in many cases.

 

Authority can be taken, or it can be given. In the case of the UN they expect it to be given, in fact it can't work if it is not given because the UN does not take authority by force.

 

Whatever the US suffers because of its actions in Iraq I see it as a sacrifice for the principles of the UN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cc

GWB and the US said its legal and thats it, case closed.

Do you mean 'case closed' in terms of a ventriloquist finishing his act ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cc

Do you mean 'case closed' in terms of a ventriloquist finishing his act ?

If it was illegal, and Bush is the guilty party, and if there is any international "authority", then surely he will be arrested when he goes to Europe. Other than that it is just rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both doc and cc seem focused on Iraq. The point was war in general.

 

Whether the Iraq war was legal or not will be thrashed out once the new Iraqi government feels strong enough to sue for compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both doc and cc seem focused on Iraq. The point was war in general.

 

Whether the Iraq war was legal or not will be thrashed out once the new Iraqi government feels strong enough to sue for compensation.

First, I am not focused on Iraq, I did not bring it up, but others keep dragging it in. Since it is there I will address it.

 

As far as "suing for compensation" that is some kind of joke. The US will be compensating no matter what so there is no cause for a suit. In fact the US has a history of compensating quite well.

 

 

 

If you feel differently and really think that is going to be happen, time will tell.

 

 

 

As far as the subject at hand you have specified that the US is determined (hell bent) on war. When asked you provided three potential targets. Normally I would ask you to narrow that down a bit but I can let that fly to help you increase your odds of being right. I did ask if we can ssume that it will happen in the next four years since our President will be leaving then, but you have not answered. I am still curious if you will enlighten us with a time frame. If there is a war within any of those regions within the next 150 years will you blame the US? You can see why I am asking for a time range. I mean, you have directly accused the US of seeking to go to war with any (or all?) of three nations, so I expect that you also can determine when that might be. Will it be in this century? In this decade? Next year?

 

Since this specific thread regards Lebabnon and Syria, maybe you will just address when we will go to war there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based upon observation, the only specifics I can offer are that , imo, any US government which feels obligated to the Evangelist and Zionist vote will pursue expansionism in the Middle East. Expansionism, of course, means war. It is very likely that such a government would be Republican, but not necessarily.

 

However, Middle Eastern war could be averted by the just creation of a Palestinian State.

 

That's all I've got in my crystal ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

was desert storm illegal?

 

War simply as an act of defense is not illegal. A country can protect its borders from intrusion using the act of military conflict. It can incite a military conflict in order to prevent or stop human rights violations and it can utilize an act of war to protect its citizens.

 

The prof is talking about a war insituted in order to alter the borders of said countries. This in itself is illegal as I have said and the prof has stated. If you read the article it does not say war is illegal, it says war with the aims to alter recognized international borders is illegal.

 

I dont need to prove the prof wrong because he is arguing something that I am not, he is arguing the legality of the Israeli Palestinian situation which I am not and do not wish to argue over because I dont believe that the Israeli expansion is legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fragged one

OK, now it's not just war but expansionism?

didn't you know that we sent over the niña, pinta, and santa maria?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it, the answer to the deficit is collecting taxes in the Middle East..... ;)

 

Let's see now...what country actually installed a puppet leader in Iraq? Oh I know people say that about the US, but I am talking about a country that actually did it.

 

And what country was it that isued the Balfour Declaration? I can't seem to remember.....

 

That guy T. E. Lawrence....he worked for Military Intelligence for what country?

 

 

The pot is black, but the kettle would seem to be stainless steel. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fragged one

i always thought that pot was green. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always take it back to how would I feel. I can tell you that if you kill me I won't like it no matter what your reasons were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't like it either.

 

I assume you are talking about war, war is not a thing to be liked regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pag...d=1109215386403

 

The unrest in Lebanon can't be going according to plan then ?

Have you been consulting your crystal ball again? :shifty::lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, do you have anything more definite about where and when the US will be invading? Maybe the same crystal ball will tell you something? ;)

 

Just curious since some of the countries potentially involved have nukes and as much as some people might dislike the US those countries aren't nearly as benevolent as the us...by orders of magnitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not slip by my point so glibly. If unrest in Lebanon is anybody's goal then the Israeli invasion of Lebanon's airspace with warplanes is a fair indicator of who would benefit from such unrest.

 

By the way, do you have anything more definite about where and when the US will be invading? Maybe the same crystal ball will tell you something?

I don't need a crystal ball to tell me that Iraq has already been invaded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...