|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 11:10:59 [Permalink]
|
I assume you're talking about this, Dave.
| The General Assembly confirmed that view. However there remains some debate about how "imminent" a threat has to be, and how large. |
Does this say something about the legality of the Iraq war? Does anyone think that there was some confusion about the necessity to defend the U.S. against Iraq and the "necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation".
Please provide sources, Dave.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 12:12:59 [Permalink]
|
Mab first called the war illegal in this conversation. Later he wrote that Dude has a point, but wrote: What's the point of having a law if no prosecutor have the balls to charge anyone with breaking it? As long as America has as much political, military, and economical clout as it has, not many countries dare go against it.
But using it for ridiculous reasons like the Iraq war, the Bush administration is wasting political capital and good will like no one before...
There is a reason why European countries puts America higher than both Iraq and North Korea on the most dangerous country and the greatest threat to world peace. |
I don't see how this is agreeing with Dude. It seems more like it is agreeing that the law in this case is unenforceable. But an unenforceable law can still be broken. I break the law speeding regularly, and hardly ever get caught or prosecuted. This bit about the USA being higher on the list of threats to world peace also echoes Gorgo's repeated statements about the US government as a terrorist organization, so I have to agree with Gorgo when he responded to this post from Mab saying that it was his point, not Dude's.
Dave wrote: | And that's the defense the U.S. has made, which is why the legality of the war is less than clear-cut. |
I don't see where Gorgo said it is clear cut. Right from the start in this conversation he has used phrases such as “there is much data” and “many legal experts say it is illegal” which imply the other side of the debate. Instead, I think Gorgo is making a firm statement about where he stands in the debate. He is also stating that people who give credibility to the other side of the legal debate are either naïve as to the real reasons why it isn't challenged (intimidation from the US), or they really do support the might makes right idea.
Dude wrote:
| Its relevant because there is a huge ammount of opposition to this war out there in the international community. If this war was in fact considered illegal by any credible authority, don't you think that Iran (a UN member since 1945) and Syria (also a member since 1945) (and a half dozen others) would have at least brought the issue to the security council for consideration? |
Considering that Iran has been named in the “axis of evil” and it is teetering on the edge of being next on the US hit list, I'm more convinced that Iran would refrain from trying to get the security council to do anything about it. I also think that Gorgo's point about Yemen being financially spanked by the US for its official opposition to the war makes a good point about intimidation and behind the scenes politics.
| Isn't their anyone in the UN who has the moral fiber to stand up and argue that this war is illegal? |
This is perfectly possible.
| Or, more likely, none of them actually think it is illegal. |
I find this unlikely.
| Which leaves you right back where you were in the last thread on this issue... pissing into the wind. |
It leaves him disagreeing with you. Neither of you can prove the real reasons why the security council hasn't dealt with the issue and possibility of the war in Iraq being illegal, so why not just further build up your argumen |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 12/12/2007 12:14:56 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 12:18:13 [Permalink]
|
| Also, I find the idea that the US was under threat of an imminent attack by Iraq before the war truly absurd. People can debate almost anything, sure, but it would take a hell of a lot of fancy arguments to convince me of that. And I'm not talking in retrospect. Did anybody here in 2002 think that Iraq was a serious threat to US security? All the people I knew who wanted Iraq invaded did so because they feared much more long-term and regional problems. And come on - Iraq as a threat to the USA? Given the disparity of military power, it is rather laughable. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 12/12/2007 : 13:31:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
I assume you're talking about this, Dave.| The General Assembly confirmed that view. However there remains some debate about how "imminent" a threat has to be, and how large. |
|
Why did you feel the need to assume that when I've quoted part of it twice already?| Does this say something about the legality of the Iraq war? Does anyone think that there was some confusion about the necessity to defend the U.S. against Iraq and the "necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation". |
I have no idea if there's any confusion over that particular point. Have I been arguing that particular point? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 13:44:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I don't see where Gorgo said it is clear cut. |
I think it's quite clear from statements like this:| It isn't illegal only because you don't want it to be illegal. It is a gross violation of international law. |
Note the use of the word "only." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 13:44:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Gorgo
What is unclear to you about this statement? |
Nothing. Apparently it's unclear to the U.N. and legal scholars.
|
What exactly do you think is unclear to anyone at all, (pick any subject in the world, and anything in the world), and what can you bring to the discussion to back up what you say? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 13:46:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
What exactly do you think is unclear to anyone at all, (pick any subject in the world, and anything in the world), and what can you bring to the discussion to back up what you say? |
I'll use bold to highlight it:Originally posted by Gorgo
However there remains some debate about how "imminent" a threat has to be, and how large. |
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 14:00:14 [Permalink]
|
| Okay. That has nothing to do with anything I've been trying to discuss, but at least you said something different. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 18:51:28 [Permalink]
|
| You have got to be kidding me. I forgot about this thread and I came back to 6 pages of this? How hard is it to take 30 seconds to be nice to someone who could use it without bringing your political views into it? |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 19:26:30 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote: | You have got to be kidding me. I forgot about this thread and I came back to 6 pages of this? How hard is it to take 30 seconds to be nice to someone who could use it without bringing your political views into it? |
How can our political views not be brought into it? You ask us to thank total strangers. I might be able to remain apolitical when dealing with a close friend or family member, but I am not going to thank a random stranger who happened to chose military service as a career. If I don't support this country's military endeavor, why would I do such a thing? If you want to talk about thanking people, we could randomly thank almost anyone who has done any kind of job that serves the community in some way. Why soldiers? This is glorification of the military as far as I can tell. And I also agree with filthy that Xerox is just playing on that sentiment in order to look good. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 19:31:28 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: I think it's quite clear from statements like this:
"It isn't illegal only because you don't want it to be illegal. It is a gross violation of international law."
Note the use of the word "only." |
Yes, that is one quote, and I had quoted other statements from him. I admit, it difficult if not impossible to parse his inflammatory comments that seem to stem from anger and frustration from his actual argument, but I think that if we take everything he has said in context, it is clear that he acknowledges the other side exists in official form, but he thinks that to regard the other side as legit is either naive or pro-American imperialism. Gorgo, correct me if I'm wrong here.
It is seriously a shame this conversation got so hostile so quickly, because it is an interesting issue where a lot of sophisticated reasoning could be done with sources brought forth to back up differing opinions. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 19:49:32 [Permalink]
|
Note the use of the word "only."
|
I've already explained all this. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 21:26:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
You have got to be kidding me. I forgot about this thread and I came back to 6 pages of this? How hard is it to take 30 seconds to be nice to someone who could use it without bringing your political views into it?
|
Why do you think you haven't brought your political views into it? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 22:16:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
...it is clear that he acknowledges the other side exists in official form, but he thinks that to regard the other side as legit is either naive or pro-American imperialism. |
The problem is that sort of black-and-white thinking. Gorgo displays animosity towards the idea that the war might not be as egregiously illegal as he thinks it is. Any opinion that isn't his - even that of those who might think the war is illegal but think he's taken things way too far - seems to be "the other side." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
FYI: Lets Say Thanks
