Human Shields (What are they thinking?) - Page 8

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>
And when the U.S. fails to comply with its own signed commitments, it is liable to a lawsuit, and I'm sure they have the do$h so I wouldn't worry about that...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, having a lot of money doesn't quite make it any more legal to break international law. If the US indeed were to be charged with breaking international law, (not very likely), then there could be a number of different sanctions put into place.
How the UN would go about this, the US being a veto-wielding power and all, is another question.
[quote] Frequent use of the imperative in conversation (e.g.: ?do this and that!?) is a lack of education in any language, to which you certainly have a right to, as you have the right to have it remarked to you. <hr></blockquote>
If your still referring to my "get down on earth" comment.
I think your overdoing it a bit. And going on about it like you've now done, makes my comment even more valid.
I would now, pretty please, suggest that you try to get over it. (mark lack of use of imperative, however tempting.)
[quote] However, there is no treaty or convention proscribing war. So there's simply no such legal terms as ?illegal war?.<hr></blockquote>
This where your wrong.

from Chapter 2, Article 2 of the UN Charter:

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

And regarding non-member states, which you seem to think aren't affected by the charter:

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

From Chapter VII, regarding the right to use force:

Article 39:
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40:
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41:
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42:
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 46:
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

And finally concerning the right to self-defence:

Article 51:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Hardly just a catchy tune. So as you see, without the proper mandate, an attack would be a breach of the UN charter.

[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
And when the U.S. fails to comply with its own signed commitments, it is liable to a lawsuit, and I'm sure they have the do$h so I wouldn't worry about that...
And when the U.S. fails to comply with its own signed commitments, it is liable to a lawsuit, and I'm sure they have the do$h so I wouldn't worry about that...<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Well, having a lot of money doesn't quite make it any more legal to break international law. If the US indeed were to be charged with breaking international law, (not very likely), then there could be a number of different sanctions put into place.
How the UN would go about this, the US being a veto-wielding power and all, is another question.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.S. was sued several times in the W.T.O. and lost, I supposed it would be roghly the same thing.

[quote]<strong>If your still referring to my "get down on earth" comment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was referring to your excessive use of the imperative in the discussion, which I find to be uneducated.
When I encounter a manner which I find uneducated, I make the observation, which I did. You can appreciate the constructive criticism, feel isulted, be indifferent and move one, I couldn't care the least.

[quote]However, there is no treaty or convention proscribing war. So there's simply no such legal terms as illegal war.<hr></blockquote>

[quote]<strong>This where your wrong.

from Chapter 2, Article 2 of the UN Charter:

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. </strong><hr></blockquote>
[Etc]
[quote]<strong>Hardly just a catchy tune. So as you see, without the proper mandate, an attack would be a breach of the UN Charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In case you hadn't noticed, nowehere was the act of war itself prohibited.
When a treaty sets out to prohibit something, it does it explicitly. The fact is that since 1945, U.N. member states have attacked others for countless times. Often the U.N. would mandate a mediation, or a cease-fire, and in exceptional cases, a punishment of the violent annexation of a member state by another (cf. Iraq 1991), but the U.N. member states have in no way committed to renounce their sovereign right to initiate war.

[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>...but the U.N. member states have in no way committed to renounce their sovereign right to initiate war. </strong><hr></blockquote>

No one has said that we have.

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
...but the U.N. member states have in no way committed to renounce their sovereign right to initiate war.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>No one has said that we have.</strong><hr></blockquote>

To state that a certain treaty or charter makes war illegal, means the states signing such commitment have renounced their right to initiate war.
[I am told that Japan has actually renounced its right to initiate war, and would only use military force in case of self-defence. But that is part of its U.S.-imposed constitution, not of its U.N. membership.
Or so I'm told.]

[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>

To state that a certain treaty or charter makes war ?illegal?, means the states signing such commitment have renounced their right to initiate war. </strong><hr></blockquote>

It's just war that under certain circumstances that would be considered "illegal", not the complete right to initiate war.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>It's just war that under certain circumstances that would be considered "illegal", not the complete right to initiate war.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That would require a straghtforward commitment by signatory not to renounce war under these or those circumstances. Yet that is not the case, not even for under certain circumstances.
At best we have solemn declarations to avoid the initiation of war, and encouragment to settle disputes via the international institutions. But that is quite those New Year resolution.
Mind you, since WW1 there were calls for outlawing war (hence making war illegal), they are yet to show any positive result.

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>The U.S. was sued several times in the W.T.O. and lost, I supposed it would be roghly the same thing?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't see the fundamental difference between trade and war?

[quote]I was referring to your excessive use of the imperative in the discussion, which I find to be uneducated.
When I encounter a manner which I find uneducated, I make the observation, which I did. You can appreciate the constructive criticism, feel isulted, be indifferent and move one, I couldn't care the least. <hr></blockquote>
Excessive use of imperative? hehe, I thought you were talking about lack of education, as in referring to the actual topic. Seems to me you were insulted.
[quote]<strong>In case you hadn't noticed, nowehere was the act of war itself prohibited.
</strong><hr></blockquote>Nobody ever said it was. What was said was that war without valid reason was illegal. The UN charter states quite clear what are valid reasons.
[quote]<strong>When a treaty sets out to prohibit something, it does it explicitly. The fact is that since 1945, U.N. member states have attacked others for countless times. Often the U.N. would mandate a mediation, or a cease-fire, and in exceptional cases, a punishment of the violent annexation of a member state by another (cf. Iraq 1991), but the U.N. member states have in no way committed to renounce their sovereign right to initiate war. </strong><hr></blockquote>The Kuwait invasion by Iraq was illegal. By international law. The responding counter attack was legal. By international law. By signing the UN charter the member states have committed themselves to not wage war without valid reasons. And to respect the sovereignty of the other states, unless they have valid reasons not to. That is the case.

I'll provide one of my links again: <a href="http://www.lcnp.org/global/IraqOpinion10.9.02.pdf" target="_blank">PDF</a>

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>
But that is quite those New Year resolution. </strong><hr></blockquote>

If there were a clause in the US Constitution that stated that New Years Resolutions were the 'supreme law of the land', then I might agree.

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
The U.S. was sued several times in the W.T.O. and lost, I supposed it would be roughly the same thing?<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>You don't see the fundamental difference between trade and war?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N. charter as the various W.T.O. commitments are treaties to which the U.S. is committed.
Were the act of war in itself, prohibited, the U.S., and a large numbers of other countries, could hgave been sued for the various time it resorted to it aince 1945 (what is more severely frowned up[on, however, is the forceful annexation of one member state by another as Iraq did to Kuwait in 1990).
Should the U.S. be sued for its alleged breaches, it might lose if it doesn't have a case.

[quote]<strong>Excessive use of imperative? hehe, I thought you were talking about lack of education, as in referring to the actual topic. Seems to me you were insulted.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't feel insulted.

[quote]<strong>Nobody ever said it [war] was [illegal]. What was said was that war without valid reason was illegal. The UN charter states quite clear what are valid reasons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It does states the member states whshall refrain from naked agression or otherwise offensive behaviours, but it does not deny them the right to act in an agressive offensive way.
An all out prohibition of aggressive war, would have been expressed explicitly and straightforwardly.
It is not.

[quote]When a treaty sets out to prohibit something, it does it explicitly. The fact is that since 1945, U.N. member states have attacked others for countless times. Often the U.N. would mandate a mediation, or a cease-fire, and in exceptional cases, a punishment of the violent annexation of a member state by another (cf. Iraq 1991), but the U.N. member states have in no way committed to renounce their sovereign right to initiate war.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>The Kuwait invasion by Iraq was illegal. By international law. The responding counter attack was legal. By international law. By signing the UN charter the member states have committed themselves to not wage war without valid reasons. And to respect the sovereignty of the other states, unless they have valid reasons not to. That is the case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But the case you are referring to, is one of an outright iinvasion and annexation of one mmember state by another.
Had Iraq declared war to Kuwait and bombed it some, U.N. action would've probably been to brokering a cease-fire (possibly to Iraq's benefit) under the Arab League aegis so not to frown the local sensitivness. It's been known to happen before.
However, an invasion and annexation of Kuwait at a time the U.S.S.R. was melting, not to mention the threat to do the same to Saudia; that prompted an unusually severe reaction.

[quote]<strong>I'll provide one of my links again: <a href="http://www.lcnp.org/global/IraqOpinion10.9.02.pdf" target="_blank">PDF</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you.
Very interesting read [ * ], and it points out that while initiating an act of war for reasons other than self-defence or upholding a U.N. mandate, inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, it is not illegal.
The Charter itself is not a prescriptive binding treaty pertaining to war initiation or its abolishment.
For any specific issue, a speocific convention is supposed to be drafted and ratified.

Take for example, the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade,
and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery of 1956:
[quote]The States Parties to the present Convention,

Considering that freedom is the birthright of every human being,

[]
Article 1.
Each of the States Parties to this Convention shall take all practicable and necessary legislative and other measures to bring about progressively and as soon as possible the complete abolition or abandonment of the following institutions and practices, where they still exist and whether or not they are covered by the definition of slavery contained in article 1 of the Slavery Convention signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926

[]<hr></blockquote>
Here, the abolition and abandonment of a certain practice is, explicitly, clearly, and straightforwardly expressed (mind you, there are still U.N. member states which keep that particular practice, whether covertly or overtly, and with relative impunity).
I have no knowledge of any such specific binding convention or protocol limiting the right of sovereign states to resort to war, whether in whole or in parts.

[* Interesting read, but at the end of the day, rather academic, since it considers that even the 1981 destruction of the Osirak nuclear facility was a violation. If one had to behave to the satisfaction of the learned Alison MacDonald and Rabinder Singh QC, one would end up dead meat.
It still fails to point to a specific binding abolition of the right of the initation of war, whether in whole or in parts.]

[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>If there were a clause in the US Constitution that stated that New Years Resolutions were the 'supreme law of the land', then I might agree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N. Charter, is even less serious about outlawing the right to wage war (or otherwise limiting the legitimate uses of that right) than a New Year Resolution is about say, stopping to use tobbacco.
And given the lack of a specific convention or protocol explicitly abolishing or limiting the right to wage war (see an actual commitment on the abolition of slavery in my above message to New), no country has committed to it, and it is therefore the law of no land

[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>

So, while a U.S. attack on Iraq without a U.N. mandate is not illegal, it does present several irregularities, which in the case of any small country with numerous opponents, would lead to strong condemnation and other solemn declarations of the sort.
If one wants to do right [ * ], such condemnations are an insignificant nuisance.
Being a superpower and all, the U.S. could probably avoid even that nuisance.

[* To do what's right in one's own opinion, regardless of what I deem as right]

[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (..)

Well, your certainly entitled to your own interpretation of international law. It would be interesting to hear if you have any sources to back up your views. Or is it just your personal opinion?
As for now, I think I'll stick with my own interpretation. The source material I've read, (to which I've provided a few links), seems to make it quite clear that most countries and experts in the field view it the same way as me and Bunge.
But if you have other documentation, fell free to provide it.

On last question, do you consider the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories illegal. By international law? (Or any other law for that matter.)

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>The U.N. Charter, is even less serious about ?outlawing? the right to wage war (or otherwise limiting the legitimate uses of that right) than a ?New Year Resolution? is about say, stopping to use tobbacco.</strong><hr></blockquote>
BTW: I believe the international regualtion of tobacco use doesn't come under the UN charter or the general assembly, but under the WHO. <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/releases/2003/pr21/en/" target="_blank">link.</a>

Oh, I don't know how I could forget this:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

- to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

- to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

- to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

- to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

- to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

- to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

- to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

- to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (..)

Well, your certainly entitled to your own interpretation of international law. It would be interesting to hear if you have any sources to back up your views. Or is it just your personal opinion?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You look at declarations replete with generalities as if they were specifically binding commitments, and interperet them as such.

Here's what would be required to serve your view:
Convention on the Abolition of Illegitiamte Warfare
[quote]Considering the right of all human beings to live in peace, safety dignity etc etc
Considering that below signed states wish to settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered etc etc

Article I:
Each of the States Parties to this Convention shall take all practicable and necessary legislative and other measures to bring about progressively and as soon as possible the complete abolition or abandonment of any initation of military operation, use of force, or threat thereof, unless acting upon a due mandate to that effect from the United Nations, and only to the extent that this mandate instructs, or acting on self-defence in a situation recognised as such by the United Nations.

And so on and so forth<hr></blockquote>
But such a document exists only in my imagination.
And until backed up by such a binding document, specifically and clearly prohibiting the use of force except when and where authorised by the U.N., all the beuatiful prose quoted by you remain in the realm of wishful thinking.

[quote]<strong>As for now, I think I'll stick with my own interpretation. The source material I've read, (to which I've provided a few links), seems to make it quite clear that most countries and experts in the field view it the same way as me and Bunge.
But if you have other documentation, fell free to provide it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That some countries and some experts view it thus hardly means that most do too, or that such view is in any way binding.
The material so diligently provided by you, makes it quite clear that it lacks any actual specifically binding commitment to make war prohibited under international law, whether in whole or in part.

[quote]<strong>On last question, do you consider the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories illegal. By international law? (Or any other law for that matter.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
The illegal occupation is one of those myths which no matter how many times refuted keep going among the believers, like Mossadegh was democratically elected or The USA propped the Taliban to fight the Soviets.

When a war occurs, armies remain on the lines held at cease-fire, pending a peace treaty, after when the armies withdraw to the negociated and agreed-upon borders.
In simpler words: the winning guys get to occupy the losing guys till the the peace treaty, when that is signed, occupation ends.
[As happened in the cases of peace treaties between the Allied power and the formerly Axis powers, or between any other formerly warring countries having made peace.]

[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>

IG,

You keep creating this straw-man argument. Neither New nor myself has said that the UN outlaws war. Except you keep arguing that it hasn't as if we're saying the UN has outlawed war.

You're pretending that we said the UN outlawed war so you can counter a point that's easily refutable. But neither of us has ever made this point so your counter points are irrelevant.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>IG,

You keep creating this straw-man argument. Neither New nor myself has said that the UN outlaws war. Except you keep arguing that it hasn't as if we're saying the UN has outlawed war.

You're pretending that we said the UN outlawed war so you can counter a point that's easily refutable. But neither of us has ever made this point so your counter points are irrelevant.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmmmm
[quote]Originally posted by bunge (posted 03-04-2003 03:17 PM, this thread):
<strong>Murder by definition is illegal. Illegitimate wars are, by definition, just as illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>

For any kind of war to be declared illegitimate and therefore illegal under international law as per U.N. member states, it has first to be outlawed by an act of international law, such as a binding treaty, convention, resolution, or protocol, by which all U.N. member states would be obligated to abide.
Which is not the case.

The sources New has provided seem pretty convincing to me that UN states have essentially made war illegal unless approved by the UN itself.

To me, it comes down to 1) whether there is any teeth in the law, since it lacks any credible enforcement mechanism, and 2) whether that international law is consistent with the sovereignty of member nations and their laws.

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>The sources New has provided seem pretty convincing to me that UN states have essentially made war illegal unless approved by the UN itself.

To me, it comes down to 1) whether there is any teeth in the law, since it lacks any credible enforcement mechanism, and 2) whether that international law is consistent with the sovereignty of member nations and their laws.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The U.N. Charter, in itself, doesn't make war outside of U.N. approval illegal, no more than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in itself, makes slavery or genocide, illegal, under international law.
Specific conventions and treaty, binding to the signatory states, were required for those two practices to be made illegal.
No such official, spcific, and binding commitment exists outlawing (making illegal) the exercise of the sovereign prerogative to wage war.

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>

For any kind of war to be declared illegitimate and therefore illegal under international law as per U.N. member states, it has first to be outlawed by an act of international law, such as a binding treaty, convention, resolution, or protocol, by which all U.N. member states would be obligated to abide. </strong><hr></blockquote>

You mean like the U.N. Charter?

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>You mean like the U.N. Charter?</strong><hr></blockquote>
See my message above to BRussel.

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>
No such official, spcific, and binding commitment exists outlawing (making illegal) the exercise of the sovereign prerogative to wage war.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You can wage war all you want, but the US has agreed to specific guidelines for when and how that war can be waged. These guidelines are now the 'supreme law of the land' ever since we signed the U.N. Charter.

The U.S. Congress still declares war. The U.S. Congress can still declare war. That war by default isn't necessarily illegitimate or illegal.

Under specific conditions it may or may not be legal.

I think bunge is saying that the UN charter is such a treaty. Wasn't the whole point of the UN and its charter basically to "outlaw war?"

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>The sources New has provided seem pretty convincing to me that UN states have essentially made war illegal unless approved by the UN itself.

To me, it comes down to 1) whether there is any teeth in the law, since it lacks any credible enforcement mechanism, and 2) whether that international law is consistent with the sovereignty of member nations and their laws.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The whole notion of sovereignty seems a bit passe now that we can penetrate a sovereign state on the grounds of what it may potentially do in the future:
sovereignty is an illusion that holds as long as the UN or someone more powerful says 'whatever you do is fine'
or
it holds if you cannot in the future overstep your borders

the whole notion of a UN places the notion of sovereignty into a trange position of being extremely conditional, expecially now when we get to decide when someone's sovereignty isn't sovereign

Some specific conventions (as in not the U.N. Charter) on various issues:
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/87.shtml" target="_blank">Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide</a>
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/88.shtml" target="_blank">Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity</a>
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/94.shtml" target="_blank">Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)</a>
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/95.shtml" target="_blank">Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II)</a>
Now, there is a section on war crimes, but nowhere would you find there any specific treaty or convention making war itself, a crime.

[<a href="http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch1/ch1_txt.htm#q5" target="_blank">Do countries surrender their sovereignty at the UN? In the U.N.'s own words</a>
The answer being, in one word: no.]

[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>I think bunge is saying that the UN charter is such a treaty. Wasn't the whole point of the UN and its charter basically to "outlaw war?"</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N. Charter is the document describing the puropses and functions of the United Nations Organisations. It does not outlaw war, nor it is supposed to.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

You can wage war all you want, but the US has agreed to specific guidelines for when and how that war can be waged. These guidelines are now the 'supreme law of the land' ever since we signed the U.N. Charter.

The U.S. Congress still declares war. The U.S. Congress can still declare war. That war by default isn't necessarily illegitimate or illegal.

Under specific conditions it may or may not be legal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N. Charter does not set specific guidelines for when and how that war can be waged, and no other document binding under international set such guidlines.
The U.N. provides mechanisms by which acts of war can be initated by member states under its mandate.
But again, it doesn't deny the sovereign right of a member state to initiate war outside such a mandate.

As long as war takes place within a certain circumscribed set of rules then it is nothing but a game to the participants(or 'like a game', for those unwilling to admit its origins in game play)
if you could make war itself illegal (ie: against the rules) then we put an end to this game

of course we would need space aliens to enforce such a law . . . that or warfare itself . . . .hhmm a conundrum?!?!?

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>As long as war takes place within a certain circumscribed set of rules then it is nothing but a game to the participants(or 'like a game', for those unwilling to admit its origins in game play)
if you could make war itself illegal (ie: against the rules) then we put an end to this game

of course we would need space aliens to enforce such a law . . . that or warfare itself . . . .hhmm a conundrum?!?!?</strong><hr></blockquote>
To put an send to war would require an entity powerful enough to defeat all opponents and impose itself as the global monopoly on the use of organised violence, the way the armed forces and law enforcements forces work within a sovereign state.
In other words, it'd require a global state, so to speak.
Then it'd have ot be able to keep the peace on a global scale, or else it'd have to deal with civil war, or several of them.

[In the event the Terran Regime is able to sustain itself, its Global Legislative Assembly could enact the Peace Act making war illegal. It would be truly the Law of All Land
Then we could start making war with the space aliens, the Peace Act being only applicable on sovereign Terran soil, not on the offworld territories.]

[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>
The U.N. Charter is the document describing the puropses and functions of the United Nations Organisations. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, and it limits the reasons why a country can go to war.

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
[i]The U.N. Charter is the document describing the puropses and functions of the United Nations Organisations.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Yes, and it limits the reasons why a country can go to war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
under U.N. mandate, that is.
The U.N. Charter doesn't in any way limit the right of sovereign states to wage war outside such a mandate.
It doesn't make genocide illegal, nor does it specify what is a war crime. that's why we have specific conventions addressing this issue. None of which limits the reasons why a country can go to war.
Cf. This thread, Immanuel Goldstein, posted 9.III.2003 11:36 forum time.

[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong> The material so diligently provided by you, makes it quite clear that it lacks any actual specifically binding commitment to make war prohibited under international law, whether in whole or in part. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yet you can point to no sources backing your own interpretation?

[quote] The ?illegal occupation? is one of those myths which no matter how many times refuted keep going among the believers, like ?Mossadegh was democratically elected? or ?The USA propped the Taliban to fight the Soviets?. <hr></blockquote>

I was starting to see were this was going, so I just had to ask. Since the US has used the majority of its 72 vetoes in the Security Council to stop UN actions against this "Myth". In comparison France has only invoked it's right to veto 18 times. And the other veto-wielding powers even less.
I don't know much about Mossadegh, and I don't see the relevance. But the US aid to the Mujaheddin is as far as I know a commonly accepted fact.

[quote]<strong>[<a href="http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch1/ch1_txt.htm#q5" target="_blank">Do countries surrender their sovereignty at the UN? In the U.N.'s own words</a>
The answer being, in one word: no.]</strong><hr></blockquote>

You keep inventing arguments that nobody have made. We all agree on this.

[quote] The U.N. Charter does not set ?specific guidelines for when and how that war can be waged?, and no other document binding under international set such guidlines.
The U.N. provides mechanisms by which acts of war can be initated by member states under its mandate.
But again, it doesn't deny the sovereign right of a member state to initiate war outside such a mandate. <hr></blockquote>

You sound like you think that the UN was set up to give member states a "mechanism" to initiate "mandated" wars. The idea of the UN was the opposite. The UN was meant to be an instrument of peace, not aggression.

[quote] To put an send to war would require an entity powerful enough to defeat all opponents and impose itself as the global monopoly on the use of organised violence, the way the armed forces and law enforcements forces work within a sovereign state. <hr></blockquote>
Hmm... That sounds familiar.

The whole business of the US using its unique position in the world and on the security councils to pressure the UN into accepting a war is a an insult to the very idea behind the UN.
I think its high time to bring this issue before the general assembly.

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
The material so diligently provided by you, makes it quite clear that it lacks any actual specifically binding commitment to make war prohibited under international law, whether in whole or in part.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Yet you can point to no sources backing your own interpretation?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have showed that the U.N. Charter does not specifically address the legality of war , and I further provided examples of specific treaties making certain things illegal.

[quote]The illegal occupation is one of those myths which no matter how many times refuted keep going among the believers, like Mossadegh was democratically elected or The USA propped the Taliban to fight the Soviets.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I was starting to see were this was going, so I just had to ask. Since the US has used the majority of its 72 vetoes in the Security Council to stop UN actions against this "Myth".</strong><hr></blockquote>
The occupation of territories conquered in war pending peace treaty is in no way illegal, for there's no specific binding convention or protocol making it illegal.
There's another myth, one of Zionism=racism which was accepted as universal truth by the U.N. until it was later overtuned, after the meltdown of the U.S.S.R.; it was no less of a myth.

[quote]<strong>I don't know much about Mossadegh, and I don't see the relevance. But the US aid to the Mujaheddin is as far as I know a commonly accepted fact.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Mujahidin were not the Taliban. The Taliban were formed in the early 1990s, after the Soviets withdrew (in 89) from Afghanistan. Not to mention the genral disinvolvement of the U.S. for the place once the Russkis were gone

[quote]Do countries surrender their sovereignty at the UN? In the U.N.'s own words
The answer being, in one word: no.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>You keep inventing arguments that nobody have made. We all agree on this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Up thread, another participant had suggested that the U.N. had somehow made sovereignity passé. One has to keep track of misconceptions, misperceptions and other myths which keep turning up no matter what.
[quote]The U.N. Charter does not set specific guidelines for when and how that war can be waged, and no other document binding under international set such guidlines.
The U.N. provides mechanisms by which acts of war can be initated by member states under its mandate.
But again, it doesn't deny the sovereign right of a member state to initiate war outside such a mandate.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>You sound like you think that the UN was set up to give member states a "mechanism" to initiate "mandated" wars. The idea of the UN was the opposite. The UN was meant to be an instrument of peace, not aggression.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I don't think it's the reason why the U.N. was set up; I know that it means well. To promote peace, to avert and prevent war, as I know that the U.N.also provides a mechanism for U.N.-mandated military actions (examples: Korean War, Gulf War).

[quote]To put an send to war would require an entity powerful enough to defeat all opponents and impose itself as the global monopoly on the use of organised violence, the way the armed forces and law enforcements forces work within a sovereign state.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Hmm... That sounds familiar.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, peace hath no price, so, si vis Pacem

[quote]<strong>The whole business of the US using its unique position in the world and on the security councils to pressure the UN into accepting a war is a an insult to the very idea behind the UN.
I think its high time to bring this issue before the general assembly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The whole business of other permanent members using their unique positions in the world and on the security councils to pressure the U.N., along with the various Third-World idiocracies using their sheer number, into preserving the Saddam Hussain regime, is somehow less of an insult?
Hardly a novelty. That's the way the U.N. has actually been functioning most of the time; each side using and abusing its particular advantage to further its interest.
So, in case you haven't noticed it before:
Welcome To Planet Reality

[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>I have showed that the U.N. Charter does not specifically address the legality of war , and I further provided examples of specific treaties making certain things illegal. </strong><hr></blockquote>
But nobody is disputing the legality of war. What we're saying is that the UN member states have committed themselves to abstain from the use of force unless they have valid reasons. These being defined by the UN charter and other commitments, sorting under the supervision of the Security Council and regulated by the International Court of Justice.
[quote]<strong>The occupation of territories conquered in war pending peace treaty is in no way illegal, for there's no specific binding convention or protocol making it illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
International law is quite clear on this. Occupation of hostile territories is legal only in the course of a conflict, for example The Allies in Germany at the end of WWII, as an interim solution. The occupying power must comply with International humanitarian law during this interim period.
Two principles are very clear: Acquisition of occupied territories (or parts of them), and transfer of civilians of the occupying power to the are in question is prohibited.
This complements another explicit principle of international law: the right of peoples to self-determination.
So while the original occupation in itself was not illegal. The fact that it has lasted for 35 years despite various UN resolutions (most importantly 242 and 478), and the way it is being enforced including the various annexations makes it illegal.
Directly in conflict with the Fourth Geneva Convention and 26 Security Council resolutions.
[quote]<strong>
There's another myth, one of ?Zionism=racism? which was accepted as universal truth by the U.N. until it was later overtuned, after the meltdown of the U.S.S.R.; it was no less of a myth. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd call your claim a myth.
[quote]<strong>he Mujahidin were not the Taliban. The Taliban were formed in the early 1990s, after the Soviets withdrew (in ?89) from Afghanistan. Not to mention the genral disinvolvement of the U.S. for the place once the Russkis were gone...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did I say anything else?
[quote]<strong>Up thread, another participant had suggested that the U.N. had somehow made sovereignity ?passé?. One has to keep track of misconceptions, misperceptions and other myths which keep turning up no matter what. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think anyone meant that.
[quote]<strong>The whole business of other permanent members using their unique positions in the world and on the security councils to pressure the U.N., along with the various Third-World idiocracies using their sheer number, into preserving the Saddam Hussain regime, is somehow less of an insult?
Hardly a novelty. That's the way the U.N. has actually been functioning most of the time; each side using and abusing its particular advantage to further its interest.
So, in case you haven't noticed it before:
?Welcome To Planet Reality??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or, from my humble perspective, not functioning at all.

Nobody is enforcing Saddam's regime. And when somebody actually did, the US was a central player, right?
Your idea of nations using "their sheer number" into enforcing things is quite intriguing. I wonder how that idea came about?

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>I have showed that the U.N. Charter does not specifically address the legality of war , and I further provided examples of specific treaties making certain things illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>Immanuel, I don't understand how you get around this, Article 2, paragraph 4, from the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter:
[quote]4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.<hr></blockquote>Are you saying that's not talking about war? Or are you saying the UN Charter is not a legally binding treaty? It was ratified by the US Senate, just as any other treaty would be, and is therefore US law.

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=war+illegal+united+nations+charter&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8" target="_blank">Here's a Google search</a> with hundreds (at least) of links with interpretations consistent with this approach. I'm genuinely interested in other interpretations, if you can link to any.

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
I have showed that the U.N. Charter does not specifically address the legality of war , and I further provided examples of specific treaties making certain things illegal.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>But nobody is disputing the legality of war. What we're saying is that the UN member states have committed themselves to abstain from the use of force unless they have valid reasons. These being defined by the UN charter and other commitments, sorting under the supervision of the Security Council and regulated by the International Court of Justice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unlike for slavery or genocide, U.N. member states haven't committed to a convention specifically abolishing the use of force outisde whathever reasons are deedmed vaild.

[quote]The occupation of territories conquered in war pending peace treaty is in no way illegal, for there's no specific binding convention or protocol making it illegal.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>International law is quite clear on this. Occupation of hostile territories is legal only in the course of a conflict, for example The Allies in Germany at the end of WWII, as an interim solution. The occupying power must comply with International humanitarian law during this interim period.
Two principles are very clear: Acquisition of occupied territories (or parts of them),</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suppose you refer to unilateral annexations of eastern Jerusalem or the Golan, yes those are unrecognised as the annexation of the West bank by Jordan in 1950 wasn;t recognised (except by the U.K. and Paksitan), but that's not illegal occupation.

[quote]<strong>and transfer of civilians of the occupying power to the are in question is prohibited.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Transfer of civilians? No one has been transferred.
[quote]<strong>This complements another explicit principle of international law: the right of peoples to self-determination.
So while the original occupation in itself was not illegal. The fact that it has lasted for 35 years</strong><hr></blockquote>
It lasted for 35 years and it will lat until a peacew treaty is signed.

[quote]<strong>despite various UN resolutions (most importantly 242 and 478), and the way it is being enforced including the various annexations makes it illegal.
Directly in conflict with the Fourth Geneva Convention and 26 Security Council resolutions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's no time limt set on military occupation they last until such time the conflict is resolved.
Neither the resolutions 242, 2338,478, or any other, nor the Forth Geneva convention make military occupation illegal.

[quote]There's another myth, one of Zionism=racism which was accepted as universal truth by the U.N. until it was later overtuned, after the meltdown of the U.S.S.R.; it was no less of a myth.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I'd call your claim a myth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What claim?
That Jewish aspiration to self-detemination is not racism?
Yea, what were they thinking?

[quote]The Mujahidin were not the Taliban. The Taliban were formed in the early 1990s, after the Soviets withdrew (in 89) from Afghanistan. Not to mention the genral disinvolvement of the U.S. for the place once the Russkis were gone...<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Did I say anything else?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your response suggested you might have confused theTaliban with the Mujahidin, as i specifically mentioned the myth of the support by the U.S. of the Taliban vs. the Soviets.

[quote]Up thread, another participant had suggested that the U.N. had somehow made sovereignity passé. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I don't think anyone meant that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Upthread: The whole notion of sovereignty seems a bit passeetc

[quote]The whole business of other permanent members using their unique positions in the world and on the security councils to pressure the U.N., along with the various Third-World idiocracies using their sheer number, into preserving the Saddam Hussain regime, is somehow less of an insult?
Hardly a novelty. That's the way the U.N. has actually been functioning most of the time; each side using and abusing its particular advantage to further its interest.
So, in case you haven't noticed it before:
Welcome To Planet Reality<hr></blockquote>


[quote]<strong>Or, from my humble perspective, not functioning at all.

Nobody is enforcing Saddam's regime.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Saddam's extensive apparatus does.
And I wasn't saying enforcing I was saying preserving , and that is exactly what Russia, France, Germany and others, are doing.
[quote]<strong>And when somebody actually did, the US was a central player, right?
Your idea of nations using "their sheer number" into enforcing things is quite intriguing. I wonder how that idea came about?</strong><hr></blockquote>
From the primitive idea of simple majority rule unfettered by checks and balances.

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
I have showed that the U.N. Charter does not specifically address the legality of war , and I further provided examples of specific treaties making certain things illegal.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong> Immanuel, I don't understand how you get around this, Article 2, paragraph 4, from the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Are you saying that's not talking about war? Or are you saying the UN Charter is not a legally binding treaty? It was ratified by the US Senate, just as any other treaty would be, and is therefore US law.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm saying that the U.N. Charter does not specifically address the legality or illegality of war, slavery or genocide. It is simply not the purpose of the Charter to address these issues specifically, that's what's the treaties and conventions specifically addressing them were for.
The now illegal practices, such as genocide are dealt with by the said specific treaties and conventions prohibiting and abolishing them. None exists that makes war illegal or limits the sovereign exercise of war to instances where it's authorised.

[quote]<strong>Here's a Google search with hundreds (at least) of links with interpretations consistent with this approach. I'm genuinely interested in other interpretations, if you can link to any..</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nowhere in the U.N. charter will you find it explcilty and specifically addressing the legality or illegality of anything, the least of all war.

Here again are some international treaties and conventions, specifically addressing the legality and illegality of several matters:
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/87.shtml" target="_blank">Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide</a>
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/88.shtml" target="_blank">Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity</a>
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/94.shtml" target="_blank">Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)</a>
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/95.shtml" target="_blank">Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II)</a>

Compare two sample texts:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
(U.N. Charter)

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
(Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide)

I gather you can understand the difference between the two texts, the one declaring and describing purposes and principles, and the one clearly defining something as illegal and punishable; if you can't tell the difference I couldn't do it for you.
There's no Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Illegitimate War or anything of the sort.

[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>

For the last time, we are not discussing the legality or illegality of war itself. Only the regulation of war by international law. And the agreements the member states have committed themselves to. Since nobody in the UN has yet take the initiative to abolish war, you are comparing Apples and Oranges.

So: War in itself is not a crime. Not yet anyway. Genocide and Slavery is. However there is (as you said) a Convention on Crimes of War and Crimes against Humanity. This Convention uses the definitions laid down by the Charter of the Millitary Tribunal of Nuremberg. Drafted mainly by the US I believe. And this charter also specifically addresses crimes against peace.

definition: Article 6 a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, (...)

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>]I suppose you refer to unilateral annexations of eastern Jerusalem or the Golan, yes those are unrecognised as the annexation of the West bank by Jordan in 1950 wasn't recognised (except by the U.K. and Paksitan), but that's not ?illegal occupation?. </strong><hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://domino.un.org/unispalselect.nsf/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/dde590c6ff232007852560df0065fddb!OpenDocument" target="_blank">Resolution 478</a>
[quote]<strong>?Transfer of civilians?? No one has been transferred </strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



[quote]<strong>It lasted for 35 years and it will lat until a peacew treaty is signed. </strong><hr></blockquote>
There will never be a peace treaty, because the occupier doesn't want one.

[quote]<strong>What claim?
That Jewish aspiration to self-detemination is not racism?
Yea, what were they thinking? </strong><hr></blockquote>
The claim that Zionism=racism was accepted as universal truth by the U.N. Utter nonsense.

[quote]<strong>
Your response suggested you might have confused theTaliban with the Mujahidin, as i specifically mentioned the myth of the support by the U.S. of the Taliban vs. the Soviets. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So by posting the correct name of who the US supported against Soviet I seemed confused? You do agree that OBL was part of the Mujaheddin?

[quote]<strong>Upthread: ?The whole notion of sovereignty seems a bit passe?etc?? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think Pfflam was being humorous.

[quote]by me:
<strong>Your idea of nations using "their sheer number" into enforcing things is quite intriguing. I wonder how that idea came about?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So was I.

No Security Council power is trying to "preserve" Saddams regime. Stability and the integrity of the UN, yes. Maybe even Peace. But Saddam, no.



[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong> For the last time, we are not discussing the legality or illegality of war itself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There simply isn't such terms as illegal war in international law.

[quote]<strong>Only the regulation of war by international law. And the agreements the member states have committed themselves to. Since nobody in the UN has yet take the initiative to abolish war, you are comparing Apples and Oranges.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are war crimes, violations of the rules of war, etc but there are no illegal wars.

[quote]<strong>So: War in itself is not a crime. Not yet anyway. Genocide and Slavery is. However there is (as you said) a Convention on Crimes of War and Crimes against Humanity. This Convention uses the definitions laid down by the Charter of the Millitary Tribunal of Nuremberg. Drafted mainly by the US I believe. And this charter also specifically addresses crimes against peace.

definition: Article 6 a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, (...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Initiating an act of war in violation of signed treaties is a violation of a treaty not an illegal war, for the simple reason that there is no such thing.

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
I suppose you refer to unilateral annexations of eastern Jerusalem or the Golan, yes those are unrecognised as the annexation of the West bank by Jordan in 1950 wasn't recognised (except by the U.K. and Paksitan), but that's not illegal occupation.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Resolution 478</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/dde590c6ff232007852560df0065fddb!OpenDocument" target="_blank">UNSC Resolution N°.478</a> of August 20th 1980, which censures the nactment of 'Hoq Yesod Ha-Golan which applies Israeli civil law on the occupied Golan heights.
Therefore, according to international law, the Golan is still considered as a territory under military occupation by Israel (as it was since 1967), and it doesn't recognise the unilateral annexation. Yet the occupation itself is not in contravention to international law, only the annexation.

[quote]Transfer of civilians? No one has been transferred<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>(Be'Tselem map of the settlements)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Transfer of civilians is a forceful removal of civilians from one place to another. A civilian moving from say, Haifa, to Efrat is not being transferred.
Then again, the settlement activity, particularly when enacted as a government policy, certainly presents numerous problems in the eyes of international law, but that is irrelevent to the question of the legality or illegality of military occupation of territories captured in war, pending peace treaty.

[quote]It (the occupation of territories previoulsly occuped by Jordan) lasted for 35 years and it will lat until a peace treaty is signed.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>There will never be a peace treaty, because the occupier doesn't want one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's observe its respective records, shall we?
The occupier has made peace with Jordan and Egypt, those treaties endure.
Question:
With whom had the Arafat outfit signed peace or any other sort of treaty, and how well did that fare?
Yet, I am not putting all the blame on the Palestinian side, one sidedness not being my thing.

[quote]<strong>The claim that Zionism=racism was accepted as universal truth by the U.N. Utter nonsense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps I shouoldn't have described in such a slighlty colourful Mediterranean/Levantine style.
I was referring to the UNGA Resolution N°.3379
of November ioth 1975, which determined that Zionism was a form of racism; so as far as the issuing organisation was concerned, it was deemed true, until it was overturned that is.

[quote]<strong>So by posting the correct name of who the US supported against Soviet I seemed confused? You do agree that OBL was part of the Mujaheddin?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes; ore precisely, he was at the head of the brigades of Saudi and other volunteers participating in the Great Afghan Jihad.

[quote]<strong>No Security Council power is trying to "preserve" Saddams regime.</strong><hr></blockquote>
At least two permanent ones: Russia and France, they and Saddam Hussain go back a long way.

[quote]<strong>Stability and the integrity of the UN, yes. Maybe even Peace. But Saddam, no.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amazing how can anyone suspect such characters as Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin of such lofty goals as stability and integrity.
Next thing, one of them would be shooting Liberty Valance and, out of modesty, let the other guy have the glory for it, for posterity.

[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>
Amazing how can anyone suspect such characters as Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin of such lofty goals as stability and integrity.
Next thing, one of them would be shooting Liberty Valance and, out of modesty, let the other guy have the glory for it, for posterity.

[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know Jacques Chirac enough to understand his real goals (if we supposed that his goals are differents than his claims), and i am always surprised by people who seems to know the real goal of peoples ; are they telepath ?

For Putine, i have even less personal opinions about him : i would only say that he is better for russia than Eltsine (which is not a great compliment in itself).

[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>