|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 03:25:26 [Permalink]
|
What you seem to be saying, Dave, is that you think it is wrong to hold an opinion. I never said there was no other side. That was Dude's contention. Read what he wrote. That tells me he is being disingenous when he says that he thinks it should be illegal. There is no other side for him.
| But it isn't illegal by any standard we have been able to find in our previous threads on the topic, and to my knowledge no legal expert has managed to find a ligitmate way to call it illegal either. |
The other side says one of two things. They either say that the resolutions gave the U.S. the right to attack Iraq or they say that this is a violation of international law pre 9/11 (see my mention of Richard Perle, and George Bush). That second view says that now this is another world, where the U.S. cannot wait for "imminent attack." Both these ideas promote the empire. They say that might makes right.
I can argue against both of these points. I can't argue when people, like Dude, tell me that the domestic courts of an international criminal legislate international law, or that Iran legislates domestic law, and somehow it's rude and hostile for me to question why he thinks that way, and why he expresses such ideas so arrogantly. I can't argue against your point, well, because you seem to make no attempt to have a point, but you seem to keep trying to make a point without backing up what you say.
There is little doubt that the U.S. government, Bush or otherwise, is an international criminal, in my mind. There is plenty of evidence to back that up. I hope I'm wrong. I don't know what you hope, because you tell me that you have no opinion, but that you have an opinion, but that opinion is not really an opinion, so you don't have to back it up. You keep repeating something that seems completely irrelevant, without explaining why it's relevant. I'm sure it is, I just can't figure out what it is, but you won't help me at all, yet you keep writing things as though you want to be in a discussion.
| Ever since a 1986 International Court of Justice ruling against the United States and in favor of Nicaragua, the United States has refused to acknowledge the ICJ's authority (the $17 billion in damages it was ordered to pay were never delivered). Shortly after that judgment, the United States actually vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on states to respect international law. Of course, the United States doesn't itself violate Security Council resolutions, since it can always veto them -- as it did when the Security Council tried to condemn its blatantly illegal invasion of Panama in 1989, and on seven occasions regarding its contra war on Nicaragua. |
http://www.counterpunch.org/mahajan03122003.html
I make firm statments, Dave, but I realize that I don't know everything. I try to keep out of conversations in which I know nothing, except to ask questions. I don't know what you know in this case, because you keep repeating the same thing over and over (did I say that before?) without explaining to me why you're saying it. I'm sure what you're saying is important, I just don't know what it is that you're saying, and you don't seem to want to help me.
Please help me, Dave. What am I missing?
By the way, resolution 1441 said that the matter resides with the U.N., not the U.S. To argue the second point, it's fine to change international law, but it's not a good precedent to set to say that one member of the U.N. can change the law on a whim.
Of course, as the article states, that doesn't mean that the UNSC itself can't violate the U.N. Charter. They have in the case of the first Gulf War and they probably will again. It's not a good system, and I am not promoting it. I'm just saying that the U.S. does not obey the rules that it sets for its enemies, and that US/UK attack on Iraq, which has lasted for at least decades, is criminal even if it wasn't a violation of international law.
So, Dave, existing international law doesn't matter to me. I don't care about it. It clearly is a violation of international law, to me, but the UNSC is about the "winners" of WWII hanging on to power, and not about any kind of real justice. If I found out that I was wrong about international law tomorrow, it would not matter to me, because that misses the whole point. I do not cling to that idea in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I have no need to.
As I've said before, I don't want to punish anyone because they've violated international law. I just want us all to get along. Why can't we all just get along, 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
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 12/13/2007 03:50:17 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 12/13/2007 : 07:33:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
What you seem to be saying, Dave, is that you think it is wrong to hold an opinion. |
Your perception is mistaken.| I never said there was no other side. |
I never said that you said that. I said quite the opposite.| I can't argue when people, like Dude, tell me that the domestic courts of an international criminal legislate international law, or that Iran legislates domestic law... |
Dude never told you that.| ...and somehow it's rude and hostile for me to question why he thinks that way... |
Neither he nor anyone else ever said or implied that, either.| I can't argue against your point, well, because you seem to make no attempt to have a point, but you seem to keep trying to make a point without backing up what you say. |
And you're wrong about that, too, as I've already pointed out.| I don't know what you hope, because you tell me that you have no opinion, but that you have an opinion, but that opinion is not really an opinion, so you don't have to back it up. You keep repeating something that seems completely irrelevant, without explaining why it's relevant. I'm sure it is, I just can't figure out what it is, but you won't help me at all, yet you keep writing things as though you want to be in a discussion. |
You're confused because rather than respond to what I write, you seem to prefer to respond to something else that you make up, but for some reason that I haven't grasped yet, you direct such responses to me.| Why can't we all just get along, Dave? |
You tell me, Gorgo. You tell me: why it is that if I think that the U.S.'s violations of international law aren't quite as egregious as you think they are, you expect me to defend Bush's nonsense? |
- 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 - 12/13/2007 : 09:08:00 [Permalink]
|
I have not asked you to back up what Bush says, I've asked you to elaborate on what your position is, and to back that up with something.
You've said that there is some argument about what "imminent attack" means. You've not said that any part of that argument is legitimate, you're just saying that international law is not all black and white. No one is arguing against that. If that is what you're saying, you are setting up a straw man. Why won't you elaborate on what you're saying?
I'm not even saying that international law is relevant except for the fact that it's what the U.S., and other countries hide behind when it's useful, and ignore when it's not. We need a better system. I think Dude would agree with that. |
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
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 12/13/2007 09:11:08 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 09:28:58 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | 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." |
Yeah, but so what? I don't think he makes it the other side, but rather, an other side, which he disagrees with. And he does disagree. I don't get the problem with that.
Gorgo, I think the biggest problem people have with you on SFN is that you often make comments about other peoples' thoughts and feelings as if you can read their minds. These are assumptions, and they sound patronizing even if you don't mean it that way. If you kept strictly to expressing your own passionate opinions and backing them up with the information that has lead you to those conclusions, I think these conversations and debates would be much more likely to stay on track and not get personal. |
"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 - 12/13/2007 : 09:50:04 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo, I think the biggest problem people have with you on SFN is that you often make comments about other peoples' thoughts and feelings as if you can read their minds. |
Okay. Thanks. |
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 - 12/13/2007 : 10:11:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
And he does disagree. I don't get the problem with that. |
I don't have a problem with that, either. What I have a problem with is, in part, people who disagree by suggesting that their opponents' positions are diametrically opposed to their own, and then ignore correction with further non-sequiturs. By way of condensed analogy:Gorgo: I think this criminal deserves a sentence of 40 years.
Me: Maybe only 35 years.
Gorgo: Can you provide any evidence that he's innocent?
Me: I never said he was innocent.
Gorgo: What you're saying is irrelevant. You never back anything up or add anything to these threads where people are trying to learn. At least, that's the way it looks to me (and not just in this thread). |
- 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 - 12/13/2007 : 10:27:57 [Permalink]
|
it looks to me (and not just in this thread).
|
straw men
I'm not asking for a sentence at all, and I didn't say that you said anyone was innocent or guilty. I'm asking you to tell me what you are saying, because it makes no sense to me. Maybe someone else can help. |
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
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 12/13/2007 10:30:29 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 10:31:35 [Permalink]
|
Dude never told you that.
|
He said nothing else.
|
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 - 12/13/2007 : 10:51:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
I'm not asking for a sentence at all, and I didn't say that you said anyone was innocent or guilty. |
I know all that. An analogy is a metaphor, not a straw man.| I'm asking you to tell me what you are saying, because it makes no sense to me. |
You already decided that whatever it was is irrelevant, so what does it matter anymore? The point is long lost. I've moved on. |
- 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 - 12/13/2007 : 11:24:45 [Permalink]
|
| I understand that it was an analogy. I was responding to the analogy. I do not know to what your analogy refers, so that's all I had to respond to. I don't know what you were trying to say, but that's okay, and I hope you have an SFN day. |
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
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
FYI: Lets Say Thanks
