or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Human Shields (What are they thinking?)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Human Shields (What are they thinking?) - Page 9

post #321 of 450
This record must be skipping. I thought we covered this. lets call it "illegal use of force" then, or " crime against peace", "breach of of international law" or just "being a world-scale asshole", doesn't really matter. We all know what we are talking about here.

[quote]<strong>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. </strong><hr></blockquote>

So what, it still a breach of international law. Since parts of the occupation (like the annexation) is illegal. So calling the occupation "illegal" is a fair statement, even when the act of occupying in itself is not illegal as such.
We are not discussing wording here, but principles of international law. And you fail to address the real issues.

[quote]<strong>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. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Are you saying palestinians have not been forcefully removed from these areas? And moving a person to an occupied territory is a transfer. Even if its voluntarily.

[quote]<strong>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. </strong><hr></blockquote>

It is very relevant. A country has no right to settle a territory under occupation. oh, I've answered this one already.

[quote]<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. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't consider "stability" and "integrity" a lofty goal. I think France and Russia are just trying to "stay in power" so to speak. I have no high thoughts for these governments.
Germany, on the other hand, I think is genuinely interested in peace. That's a "lofty" and valiant goal.

Jimmy Carter wrote a very good article in the New York Times this Sunday. I don't know why its not on the net yet, but at least you can read about it <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq-carter.html" target="_blank">here.</a> He says the war is unjust and "almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations.'' Strong words from a usually mild man.

[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #322 of 450
New wrote:
[quote]<strong>
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.

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. <hr></blockquote></strong>

What's not valid about the US/UK/Spain Auzi etc case for war? legally I mean? SC resolution 1441 clearly states that Iraq must comply swiftly completely, fully and without delay or face the consequences of noncompliance - 4 months have passed since that resolution was passed and Iraq clearly hasn't complied! even the French accept that much - their argument is about the usefulness of war vs the usefulness of giving the inspectors more time - there is no argument about Iraq's non-compliance, no one is disputing this simple fact, in fact everyone agrees that Iraq has not complied with 1441. therefore Legally the use of force is absolutely legal and justified and is sanctioned by the UN and its resolution.

You can argue about the wisdom of war under current circumstances but legally you have no case here!

[quote]<strong>so while the original occupation in itself was not illegal. The fact that it has lasted for 35 years? <hr></blockquote></strong>

Read resolution 242 again my friend - it puts no specific time limits or deadlines, it calls for:

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;


Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; "

The two are intertwined - one part cannot happen without the other part taking place, so, in effect what we have here is a SC resolution that all involved parties are in breach of - that's it - nothing to do with the legality or the absence of legality of the continued Israeli occupation - note that the resolution doesn't even call for the FULL withdrawal of Israeli forces from ALL territories occupied - clearly the SC meant for boundaries to be established as a result of peace treaties and negotiations such as those that have taken place between Israel and Egypt (the only case where res 242 was actually implemented)

[quote]<strong>No Security Council power is trying to "preserve" Saddams regime, Stability and the integrity of the UN, yes. Maybe even Peace. But Saddam, no <hr></blockquote></strong>

Well, as wise powerdoc suggests lets not hazard to venture into other people's minds and personal agendas - how can we really?!?
though consider this:
Intentions are not the pertinent issue here, however plain real world results are at stake here - the point is that You, Chirac, Putin, all those millions of anti war marchers, protesters, pacifists, appeasers, interested parties, scared Arabs, proud Arabs and all the rest of them may not like Sadam, or wish him good health, or support his despotic regime, but (and that's a very big BUT), the END RESULT of what is being suggested, supported and done by the anti war side is one and the same with Sadam's interests! its simply to continue the same inaction and feet dragging of the past 12 years - more WOMD for Sadam, more Iraqis dying from sanctions, more Iraqis dying at the hands of Sadam's goons, more long term instability and greater WOMD risks in our world, and last but not least more years for old Sadam on his bloody throne!
You may not realize or mean to but in effect you are supporting Sadam!

[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
post #323 of 450
[quote]Strong words from a usually mild man.<hr></blockquote>

Thanks to the efforts of this "mild man", North Korea presently possesses 1-2 uranium-implosion nuclear weapons, and is well on its way to the mass-production of weapons-grade plutonium. You don't get far by trusting paranoid dictators at their word. He should have retired to a log cabin in Georgia long, long ago. Fortunately for him, he'll likely have passed on before things come to a very bloody head in Korea. God help him if he's still around when a NK nuke lands on Los Angeles.
post #324 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>This record must be skipping. I thought we covered this. lets call it "illegal use of force" then, or " crime against peace", "breach of of international law" or just "being a world-scale asshole", doesn't really matter. We all know what we are talking about here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We are talking about the intent to settle the score with Iraq, a country with which the U.S.A. is still in a state of war (unless they signed a peace treaty while I was asleep). Those things have happened before:I recall one fine sunny morning in October 1973, and nobody said Egypt or Syria were committing a crime against peace, illegal use of force, or any other grandiloquent phrasings.
While there are many reasonable critiques which can be leveled at the planned attack of the U.S. , illegality not being one of them.
Whatever the faults of the U.S.' planned war against Iraq, it is more legitimate than the ongoing existence of the Saddam Hussain regime.

[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>So what, it still a breach of international law. Since parts of the occupation (like the annexation) is illegal. So calling the occupation "illegal" is a fair statement, even when the act of occupying in itself is not illegal as such.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Illegal occupation means the act of occupying in itself is illegal as such. One can address the unlawful nature of the unilateral annexation form the POV of international law, that's another thing; otherwise violations, crimes, excesses, misdemeanors, occuring since the conquest of 1967, are other things yet. Yet these don't make the act of military occupation illegal, therefore, they don't make the occupation illegal.

[quote]<strong>We are not discussing wording here, but principles of international law. And you fail to address the real issues.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I do not.

[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>

[quote]<strong>Are you saying palestinians have not been forcefully removed from these areas?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The overwhelming majority of the settlements were built in uninhabited areas, which have been on state lands since Ottoman times.

[quote]<strong>And moving a person to an occupied territory is a transfer. Even if its voluntarily.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A person moving voluntarily form one residence to another is not transfer.
As said previously, there are many irregularity as per the settlements, the fact of Israeli Jews living there not being one of them.
Voluntary transfer is an oxymoron invented by late Israeli far-right politician Re'Hav'am Gandhi Zeevi, funny that you adopt his expressions.

[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>It is very relevant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Answered above, repreated by popular demand:
Illegal occupation means the act of occupying in itself is illegal as such. One can address the unlawful nature of the unilateral annexation form the POV of international law, that's another thing; otherwise violations, crimes, excesses, misdemeanors, occuring since the conquest of 1967, are other things yet. Yet these don't make the act of military occupation illegal, therefore, they don't make the occupation illegal.

[quote]Amazing how can anyone suspect such characters as Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin of such lofty goals as stability and integrity.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I don't consider "stability" and "integrity" a lofty goal. I think France and Russia are just trying to "stay in power" so to speak. I have no high thoughts for these governments.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In comparison with Putin's and Chirac's records they certainly seems lofty and laudable. These two make Bush II look like a boy scout.

[quote]<strong>Germany, on the other hand, I think is genuinely interested in peace. That's a "lofty" and valiant goal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is certainly pertinent of Germany to adopt a pacifist policy, but it's very imertinent of that cohtry to preach pacifism to others.

[quote]<strong>Jimmy Carter wrote a very good article in the New York Times this Sunday. I don't know why its not on the net yet, but at least you can read about it here. He says the war is unjust and "almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations.'' Strong words from a usually mild man.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hardly unprecedented or unjust in comparison to recent history. Mr. Carter, whom I'm quite fond of actually, should tone down his superlatives, and remember that his policy of détente had a large part in encouraging the Soviets to show more audacity, like in the invasion of Afghanistan, among other things.
The most unjust thing in relation to Iraq today, is that it is still being governed by Saddam Hussain.

Question: do you use Safari when posting your messages?

[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #325 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>
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 ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Chirac's record in international affairs speaks for itself. He's been the major backer of the rapprochment with Saddam Hussain during the 70s and 80s: the Osirak nuclear plant was pretty much his baby, that back then, many referred to it as O'chirak. The end of the current Iraqi regime means that all the carefully crafted connections set up there would go away, so the quai d'Orsay, and Chirac himself, have stakes in it remianing as it is.

[quote]<strong>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).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Putin is a ruthless, moderately authoritarian (moderately for Russia that is) politician. Russia has little experience with the intricacies of modern sophisticated democracy, as it had mostly known autocracy and totalitarianism, with interregna of balagan (general disorder) or bardak (le bordel). Given these Russian realities Putin might actually be what the doctor ordered, particularly after years of Eltsine. Yet, he's hardly the one to think of when thinking stability and integrity in the international arena, if you ask me.
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #326 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>Chirac's record in international affairs speaks for itself. He's been the major backer of the rapprochment with Saddam Hussain during the 70s and 80s: the Osirak nuclear plant was pretty much his baby, that back then, many referred to it as O'chirak. The end of the current Iraqi regime means that all the carefully crafted connections set up there would go away, so the quai d'Orsay, and Chirac himself, have stakes in it remianing as it is.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Chirac has commited big mistakes in the past, i think he commited this one with Giscard (i can't believe that the president did not know this contract).

I don't think he is still considering 27 years later that Saddam he is still a good guy. At the time he did not appear at the eye of some occidental countries (the israelian where more wise here) that it was a bad guy. Now it's different , Saddam commited two wars, tempted to make genocide against the kurds and employed chemical weapons. He is well known that he tried to make nuclear weapons also.

I didn't hear yesterday , Chirac saying that Saddam was a good guy, at the contrary he said he was dangerous dictator and a threat. The point he made, is that he wants to hear from the mouth of the inspector that their mission is not anymore possible, and thus war is the only option. He said that he was not his role to said if Iraq play the game or not. He voted and help to built the 1441 resolution, so he follow it. He also said that Iraq do not cooperate enough, probabily has still some weapons hidden and that the progress made was due to the giant pressure of US and UK.

Of course we can discuss the oportunity of such choice and consider like Powell it's a waste of time, but i would not say that Chirac want simply to save Saddam ass.

[quote] Putin is a ruthless, moderately authoritarian (moderately for Russia that is) politician. Russia has little experience with the intricacies of modern sophisticated democracy, as it had mostly known autocracy and totalitarianism, with interregna of balagan (general disorder) or bardak (le bordel). Given these Russian realities Putin might actually be what the doctor ordered, particularly after years of Eltsine. Yet, he's hardly the one to think of when thinking stability and integrity in the international arena, if you ask me. <hr></blockquote>

Your analysis is probabily right, but what i meant is that i don't know his "real" reasons for his position.

[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
post #327 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>
Chirac has commited big mistakes in the past, i think he commited this one with Giscard (i can't believe that the president did not know this contract).

I don't think he is still considering 27 years later that Saddam he is still a good guy. At the time he did not appear at the eye of some occidental countries (the israelian where more wise here) that it was a bad guy. Now it's different , Saddam commited two wars, tempted to make genocide against the kurds and employed chemical weapons. He is well known that he tried to make nuclear weapons also.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not so much a question of considering Saddam a good guy or not. The French policies toward Saddam were quite consistent and constant in the 70s and 80s. While Giscard was certainly aware and favourable to the rapprochment wioth the Saddam regime, its most enthusiastic supporter was Chirac. The same policy was kept under Mitterrand, who ever loaned Super Étendard fighters to Iraq, hose French markings would be occulted when lfown by Iraqis in combat.
The true nature of Saddam was well known by then (but then so was the case for Bokassa or Mobutu), yet he was seen favourably by France and the U.S.S.R., and later by the U.S.A. as their old ally Iran had turned against them.
Due to the long years of partnership with that regime, bith France and Russia have a stake at seeing it endure, even if diminished. Naturally, it's not something which can be acceptable in their official discourse.

[quote]<strong>I didn't hear yesterday , Chirac saying that Saddam was a good guy, at the contrary he said he was dangerous dictator and a threat. The point he made, is that he wants to hear from the mouth of the inspector that their mission is not anymore possible, and thus war is the only option. He said that he was not his role to said if Iraq play the game or not. He voted and help to built the 1441 resolution, so he follow it. He also said that Iraq do not cooperate enough, probabily has still some weapons hidden and that the progress made was due to the giant pressure of US and UK.

Of course we can discuss the oportunity of such choice and consider like Powell it's a waste of time, but i would not say that Chirac want simply to save Saddam ass.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not so much about Saddam's arse, as it is about preserving the interests invested in his presidential posterior. A Saddam-less Iraq opens too many undertainties for them.
An Iraq with Saddam leaves open the eventuality he might one day recuperate and become a clear threat once again and not just to Iraqis and immediate neighbours, as he is now.
Given the lack of alternative initiatives for his removal from those politically opposed to the one removal currently proposed by the U.S., it follows that they prefer the perpetuation of the current impasse, which has been going on since 1991.
[While I have serious misgiving about an all-out war in Iraq, the only currently available alternative is even less acceptable.]

[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #328 of 450
Powerdoc
While I disagree with several points of that editorial analysis I agree with that one:
[quote]
Extrait:
«Pourtant, la diplomatie américaine commence une série de concessions dont l'importance n'apparaîtra pleinement qu'après coup : par exemple, en n'insistant pas - devant l'opposition irakienne relayée par la France et la Russie -, pour que le premier choix de patron des équipes d'inspecteurs, l'expérimenté diplomate Suédois Rolf Ekeus, soit nommé Ã* la tête de l'UNMOVIC . à la place, elle se laissera imposer le plus souple Hans Blix . Ultérieurement, les noms de plusieurs experts en armements seront biffés par les Irakiens, dont une fois de plus la France se fera le relais pour les exclure des équipes d'inspecteurs.»<hr></blockquote>
The article in its integrality:
<a href="http://www.proche-orient.info/xjournal_pol_analyse.php3?id_article=10619" target="_blank">Proche-Orient.info: Les faux-pas de Colin Powell : comment la diplomatie américaine s'est laissé ligoter en six mois aux Nations unies </a>

[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #329 of 450
[quote] Question: do you use Safari when posting your messages? <hr></blockquote>
yes? (I'll get back to the issue later.)
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #330 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
Question: do you use Safari when posting your messages?<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
yes? (I'll get back to the issue later.) </strong><hr></blockquote>

I suppose that's the reason why various signs such as a or a appear as an ?
If I were really to nitpick I'd say you're constantly mis-quoting me.

[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #331 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>Powerdoc
While I disagree with several points of that editorial analysis I agree with that one:

The article in its integrality:
<a href="http://www.proche-orient.info/xjournal_pol_analyse.php3?id_article=10619" target="_blank">Proche-Orient.info: Les faux-pas de Colin Powell : comment la diplomatie américaine s'est laissé ligoter en six mois aux Nations unies </a>

[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know if this website is neutral. They give a very bad image of Powell who at the contrary of Rumsfeld and others is not less pro-israelian (read in the article). Powell is shown as M Mistake in foreign politic.

I think that the internal conflict inside the white house explain this * changing politic of US for a war with Iraq . This change is one of the key of the lack of popularity of Bush's admin in the world . The other key is how the media presented Bush and his admin. US media presented him badly and Europe reported this image with the usual distorsion : you can see the result.

I think that preserving Saddam at the cost of "pissing" the US will be a big mistake and a very bad deal. If all this storie was just a preservation of some interest, all the issues could have been dealt secretly with the US. I think that the point is otherwhere, and that Powell did not understood this. We cannot understand the issue of these diplomatical conflict by oil issues or economics interests.
post #332 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>
I don't know if this website is neutral. They give a very bad image of Powell who at the contrary of Rumsfeld and others is not less pro-israelian (read in the article). Powell is shown as M Mistake in foreign politic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The website is very well informed, and quite intellectual Parisian in style. You wouldn't catch it publishing fake news (as was known to happen with the Nouvel Obs). Editorial opinions vary from pro-Israeli to pro-Palestinian, according to their authors, yet you wouldn't find there any reflections of views of such AI pundits and experts as New or Mika. So I'd say it's quite moderate and more or less balanced.
As for this editorial, I find it underestimates Powell as well as wrongly places him in the orbit of Baker and Scowcroft.
The one point of the article with which I'm in agreemnt is the one I quoted in my previous post to you.

[quote]<strong>I think that the internal conflict inside the white house explain this * changing politic of US for a war with Iraq . This change is one of the key of the lack of popularity of Bush's admin in the world . The other key is how the media presented Bush and his admin. US media presented him badly and Europe reported this image with the usual distorsion : you can see the result.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While the Bush administration, far form being unilateralist, does makes great efforts to engage a dialogue with the other world players, it's doing it very badly, and I disagree with the linked editorial that it is Powell who is mostly to blame.

[quote]<strong>I think that preserving Saddam at the cost of "pissing" the US will be a big mistake and a very bad deal. If all this storie was just a preservation of some interest, all the issues could have been dealt secretly with the US. I think that the point is otherwhere, and that Powell did not understood this. We cannot understand the issue of these diplomatical conflict by oil issues or economics interests.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The long partnership between the current Iraqi regime and the two permanent SC power most opposed to the U.S. initiative, France and Russia, has many built-in advantages for them, which would be lost should this regime be removed.
That, as well as a fear from U.S. assertive interventionism around the world, and a will to assert their own role as world players, is motivating the current stance of these two countries, if you ask me.

[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #333 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:


<strong>
The long partnership between the current Iraqi regime and the two permanent SC power most opposed to the U.S. initiative, France and Russia, has many built-in advantages for them, which would be lost should this regime be removed.
That, as well as a fear from U.S. assertive interventionism around the world, and a will to assert their own role as world players, is motivating the current stance of these two countries, if you ask me.

[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think the latter point is the more important of the two.

[quote] The website is very well informed, and quite Âintellectual Parisian in style. You wouldn't catch it publishing fake news (as was known to happen with the Nouvel Obs). Editorial opinions vary from pro-Israeli to pro-Palestinian, according to their authors, yet you wouldn't find there any reflections of views of such AI pundits and experts as New or Mika. So I'd say it's quite moderate and more or less balanced.
<hr></blockquote>
As i don't know this web-site and you know it, i will buy your advice.

[quote] While the Bush administration, far form being unilateralist, does makes great efforts to engage a dialogue with the other world players, it's doing it very badly, and I disagree with the linked editorial that it is Powell who is mostly to blame. <hr></blockquote>

I am not expert in the US admin, but i think that Powell is not unilateralist. However what you call great effort but badly made, looks rather for me like unilateral behavioring hidden behind official multilateral discussions where US has already made his opinion (we discuss alltogether but we have already our opinion but we will not change it, only smoothe some minor issues to make you please *).

An another point of this debate is the future of Iraq. Who will be in charge after Saddam. There is a great risk in the mid long term (not in the short, US and UN troops will prevent this) that the muslims extremists took power like in Iran. The good-hearted Carter wanted to remove a dictature the shah and at the place we see Khomeiny (great move), the French thinked that Khomeiny will thanks France for his exile (an another great move).
The action of occident in these aera is a long list of failure, but that's an another story, i just wish that there would not be an another add to this huge list.


*excuse me for this atrocious english , in french, comme des reunions de soi-disant concertation ou toutes les decisions ont ete prises Ã* l'avance)
post #334 of 450
Sorry to interject...

powerdoc:

[quote]However what you call great effort but badly made, looks rather for me like unilateral behavioring hidden behind official multilateral discussions where US has already made his opinion (we discuss alltogether but we have already our opinion but we will not change it, only smoothe some minor issues to make you please *).<hr></blockquote>

This seems to work both ways. France is set in their position no matter what happens, and Chirac himself has come out and said as much. So one can say that Bush wants war but if they want to be honest they must also say that Chirac wants Saddam to stay.

There is a false assumption surrounding this whole issue that the U.S. was a biased entity bringing their ideas to an objective body. The members of the U.N. are just as biased as the U.S. So you see Bush sticking hard to the language of 1441 and French diplomats running away from it. It's all about agenda, with both sides.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #335 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>

I suppose that's the reason why various signs such as a ? or a ? appear as an ?
If I were really to nitpick I'd say you're constantly mis-quoting me.

[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh, sorry. I was wondering why you were doing that.
I guess safari doesn't support bullets very well.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #336 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
I guess safari doesn't support bullets very well.</strong><hr></blockquote>


I'd guess that Apple doesn't support AppleInsider very well....
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #337 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Sorry to interject...

powerdoc:



This seems to work both ways. France is set in their position no matter what happens, and Chirac himself has come out and said as much. So one can say that Bush wants war but if they want to be honest they must also say that Chirac wants Saddam to stay.

There is a false assumption surrounding this whole issue that the U.S. was a biased entity bringing their ideas to an objective body. The members of the U.N. are just as biased as the U.S. So you see Bush sticking hard to the language of 1441 and French diplomats running away from it. It's all about agenda, with both sides.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Groverat, you are welcome

I agree that France seems to be set to his position whatever will happens. I wish that the UN inspectors says : our mission failed, there is nothing to do. That way, according to what said Chirac yesterday on TV : France will enter in the coalition against Iraq, and that ****en Marmelade will stop. However it's only a dream and i doubt it will happen.

The article quoted by Immanuel showed (sorry it's in french and i do not agree with how was portrayed Powell) that there was a internal rivaltry between Powell and Rumsfield and others. This rivaltry explain, (if this article is true) why the management of the Iraq case by US changed. Unfortunately it did not change in the right order. If the case of Iraq had been bring in a different way, the result may be different.
Linking Iraq with Al Quaeda was not a good thing, or a bad shortcut . Rather than said there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, it would have been better to explain this (from the mouth of an US journalist, but not the exact wording) :this aera has many terrorists, Saddam is a dangerous dictator with many WOMD that he already use it, It's dangerous in the same region to let them stay together.

[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
post #338 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
[QB]The article quoted by Immanuel showed (sorry it's in french and i do not agree with how was portrayed Powell) that there was a internal rivaltry between Powell and Rumsfield and others. This rivaltry explain, (if this article is true) why the management of the Iraq case by US changed.<hr></blockquote>

I obviously can't speak French, but there is definitely a difference between Powell and Rumsfeld. Powell has been a "dove" in many ways since before even the Gulf War in 1991.

And while I agree that trying to link Hussein to bin Laden is silly I think people make too much of how much importance the Bush administration places on it. It seems to be something convenient for those who would otherwise be against Bush to complain about. It is not as if Bush is basing his case on that issue.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #339 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>

If the case of Iraq had been bring in a different way, the result may be different.
]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely, perhaps Bush not assuming that he is fullfulling a holy mssion from God would also not alienate so many people
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #340 of 450
Then we could have another 8 years of nothing being accomplished but Iraqi civilians being killed off by the tens of thousands from economic sanctions.

WooHoo for status quo politick!
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #341 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Then we could have another 8 years of nothing being accomplished but Iraqi civilians being killed off by the tens of thousands from economic sanctions.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, let's kill them off quicker!
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #342 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by rashumon:
<strong>You can argue about the wisdom of war under current circumstances but legally you have no case here!
</strong><hr></blockquote>

you haven't really followed this discussion to closely, have you? We went through this argumentation pages ago. There is not even agreement within the SC on Saddams compliance.

[quote]<strong>The two are intertwined - one part cannot happen without the other part taking place, so, in effect what we have here is a SC resolution that all involved parties are in breach of - that's it - nothing to do with the legality or the absence of legality of the continued Israeli occupation - note that the resolution doesn't even call for the FULL withdrawal of Israeli forces from ALL territories occupied - clearly the SC meant for boundaries to be established as a result of peace treaties and negotiations such as those that have taken place between Israel and Egypt (the only case where res 242 was actually implemented) </strong><hr></blockquote>

FYI: The French version actually has the term "the territories". You can of-course fantasize all you want about the motives behind the resolution. There is no doubt about the true intention of the resolution, and mark that the US abstained from voting at the time.

[quote]<strong>You may not realize or mean to but in effect you are supporting Sadam!</strong><hr></blockquote>

You may not realize it, but in effect you are supporting the breach of international law. The fact that I think there are other ways to deal with Saddam , does not make me a supporter of him.

[quote]Originally posted by Goldstein:
<strong>We are talking about the intent to settle the score with Iraq, a country with which the U.S.A. is still in a state of war (unless they signed a peace treaty while I was asleep). Those things have happened before:I recall one fine sunny morning in October 1973, and nobody said Egypt or Syria were committing a "crime against peace", "illegal use of force", or any other grandiloquent phrasings.
While there are many reasonable critiques which can be leveled at the planned attack of the U.S. , ?illegality? not being one of them.
Whatever the faults of the U.S.' planned war against Iraq, it is more legitimate than the ongoing existence of the Saddam Hussain regime. </strong><hr></blockquote>

The war of 1973 is hardly comparable. What part of the US is Iraq occupying?
Jimmy Carter one of many reasonable people highly qualified to have an opinion on this, who thinks there is a question of breach of international law here.

I really don't see you backing up you claims with any qualified expertise, other than your own opinion.

[quote]<strong>"Illegal occupation" means the act of occupying in itself is illegal as such. One can address the unlawful nature of the unilateral annexation form the POV of international law, that's another thing; otherwise violations, crimes, excesses, misdemeanors, occuring since the conquest of 1967, are other things yet. Yet these don't make the act of military occupation illegal, therefore, they don't make the occupation illegal. </strong><hr></blockquote>

So if the americans started settling Hamburg after world war two, this wouldn't be a misuse of their right to occupy Germany? The Israeli Government(s) and the same armed forces that are occupying an area, use this right to knowingly and repeatedly break international law. The occupation didn't just happen in 67, its an ongoing event. And its current form is dire breach of international law.

[quote]<strong>The overwhelming majority of the settlements were built in uninhabited areas, which have been on state lands since Ottoman times. </strong><hr></blockquote>Are you saying no palestinians have been forcefully removed?
And study the map. It can't be that overwhelming. And it is illegal, even in uninhabited areas.

[quote]<strong>In comparison with Putin's and Chirac's records they certainly seems lofty and laudable. These two make Bush II look like a boy scout. </strong><hr></blockquote>He is a boy scout compared to those two. But he is making rapid progress. Guess who will be remembered most by history?

[quote]<strong>t's not so much about Saddam's arse, as it is about preserving the interests invested in his presidential posterior. A Saddam-less Iraq opens too many undertainties for them.
</strong><hr></blockquote>Saying that Russia and France is working to keep Sadam in power is naive. Everybody knows that Saddam will never make a comeback as one of the "good guys". Clearly this is about the US dictating the actions of the UN.
Personally I don't think Saddam wouldn't have lasted very long even without a war. But thats purely hypothetical, since war is just days away.

[quote]<strong>yet you wouldn't find there any reflections of views of such AI pundits and experts as New or Mika. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Gee, thanks for the confidence man.

[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #343 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Yeah, let's kill them off quicker!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Or we could oust the guy that keeps so much international pressure on them and by removing him remove the economic sanctions that kill them, giving them a chance at self-determination, peace (which they haven't had for over a decade) and economic/social success!

I choose that option.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #344 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

Or we could oust the guy that keeps so much international pressure on them and by removing him remove the economic sanctions that kill them, giving them a chance at self-determination, peace (which they haven't had for over a decade) and economic/social success! </strong><hr></blockquote>

And you can just oust him like that? You're going to ask him to leave and he'll leave? Wow...you're good groverat.

Oh wait, you mean go to war? Oh. Speaking of which...

Why isn't going to war illegal?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #345 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>And you can just oust him like that? You're going to ask him to leave and he'll leave? Wow...you're good groverat.

Oh wait, you mean go to war? Oh. Speaking of which...

Why isn't going to war illegal?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Kofi Annan doesn't seem to mind <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2472652,00.html" target="_blank">discussing ousting</a> Saddam Hussein. He even got an assistant of his to draw up plans for a post-war Iraq. Last I checked that's not in the spirit of the UN Charter either.

Hmmm, who *is* doing things by this law you mention?

If the Security Council goes with us then it's fine. If we go without the Security Council then that's our decision for self-defense, us being involved with the UN takes no sovreignty from us.

If the head of the UN doesn't respect its rules what does that say? Perhaps the US is the only entity you will chastise for bucking UN rules?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #346 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

Kofi Annan doesn't seem to mind <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2472652,00.html" target="_blank">discussing ousting</a> Saddam Hussein. He even got an assistant of his to draw up plans for a post-war Iraq. Last I checked that's not in the spirit of the UN Charter either. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Last you checked? How so? Go for it, show us.



Groverat: "Well Billy hit Susie so that means it's OK if I hit Johnny!" Take your child-like playground arguments back to the playground.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #347 of 450
You retreat more than the French, I like it. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

Kofi Annan <a href="http://www.riyadhdaily.com.sa/cgi-bin/display_assay.pl?issue=Thursday+-+06+March+2003&section=Europe/The+Americas&id=30249" target="_blank">draws up</a> plans for post-war Iraq.

So we have Kofi Annan, secretary-general of the UN drawing up plans for a post-war Iraq and hinting that Saddam could be removed through international courts. Discussing the removal of the leader of a current UN member state seems to go against the spirit of "promoting international peace" does it not. You have spent quite a bit of energy saying that Saddam is dangerous if he is threatened (but not necessarily dangerous if we leave him alone). So I ask you, bunge, why is this belief you hold suspended for Kofi Annan?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #348 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Kofi Annan <a href="http://www.riyadhdaily.com.sa/cgi-bin/display_assay.pl?issue=Thursday+-+06+March+2003&section=Europe/The+Americas&id=30249" target="_blank">draws up</a> plans for post-war Iraq.

So we have Kofi Annan, secretary-general of the UN drawing up plans for a post-war Iraq and hinting that Saddam could be removed through international courts. Discussing the removal of the leader of a current UN member state seems to go against the spirit of "promoting international peace" does it not.</strong><hr></blockquote>This post is just dumb, groverat. Just think about this for a minute.
post #349 of 450
It's inconceivable to you that the head of the UN discussing ousting Saddam would actually harm the effort for peace?

My my my, how quickly we shift gears.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #350 of 450
You said that Coffee is blocking rules by discussing, uh, the rules by which action could be taken. I'll let others evaluate whether that's dumb or not.
post #351 of 450
I say he violates the "spirit" of the laws by talking about usurping a standing leader of a UN nation.

Why do you think he's so guarded about his comments to that effect, they can't be innocuous if they are so controversial, now can they?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #352 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>You retreat more than the French, I like it. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

:confused:

You make no sense.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Kofi Annan <a href="http://www.riyadhdaily.com.sa/cgi-bin/display_assay.pl?issue=Thursday+-+06+March+2003&section=Europe/The+Americas&id=30249" target="_blank">draws up</a> plans for post-war Iraq. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Again, how is this against what the U.N. believes? At the very least if there is an attack, there will be a huge humanitarian crisis to take care of. Why on earth wouldn't they discuss it?

:confused:

You make no sense.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #353 of 450
[quote]<strong>Again, how is this against what the U.N. believes? At the very least if there is an attack, there will be a huge humanitarian crisis to take care of. Why on earth wouldn't they discuss it?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well first off there's a huge humanitarian crisis there that UN inaction is causing, but aside from that you ignore the part about Annan discussing overthrowing Hussein through the international court.

I guess if you want to ignore it you can, that's the way you've operated until now, no reason for that to change.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #354 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>...you ignore the part about Annan discussing overthrowing Hussein through the international court. </strong><hr></blockquote>

From groverat's link:
[quote]
Eighteen judges took their seats Tuesday at the world's first permanent war crimes court, a long-awaited body that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said - without specifically mentioning Iraq - could help ``dismantle tyrannies'' and replace them with democratic regimes.<hr></blockquote>
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #355 of 450
"If the US and others were to go outside the Council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the Charter."
"now face a momentous choice" (on Iraq)"If they fail to agree on a common position, and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action will be seriously impaired."

Kofi Annan, Yesterday (from his own homepage)
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #356 of 450
"legitimacy".

heh
heheh
heheheheheheh

--

bunge:

Iraq says it is democratic now, so what is Annan saying? Not very nice of him.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #357 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
you haven't really followed this discussion to closely, have you? We went through this argumentation pages ago. There is not even agreement within the SC on Saddams compliance. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Don't try to fob me off the argument like this New, resolution 1441 clearly states:

2.Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Decides , while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;


3.Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

...............and this is the most pertinent bit - enabling the use of force as a remedy for noncompliance

13.Â*Â*Â*Â* Recalls , in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;


I don't know about you but to me this is obvious and direct stuff.
Has Iraq supplied a full complete declaration? No!
Has it revealed all its WOMD and laid these down and destroyed in open daylight with the inspectors verification? No!
Its well known that Iraq has tons of Chemical and Bio agents it has not mentioned in its reports to the UN and to the Inspectors, that's noncompliance,
Iraq has failed to explain what has happened to these substances that the UN knows it had in 98, that's noncompliance!
Iraq has tried to hide numerous different weapon systems such as the Al-Samud missiles, the recently discovered unmaned aircraft Blix mentioned last friday in his report, various shells capable of delivering chemical and bio agents - all of these were not mentioned by the original Iraqi reports, nor were they revealed by the Iraqis willingly and swiftly that's noncompliance!
Iraq is still not providing full interview access to its scientists and engineers and generally it is trying its best to slow the inspectors work and is not in the least bit acting as 1441 demands it to act. the following quote form the resolution comes to mind:

4.Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq?s obligations


that's noncompliance!

Legaly the case against Iraq based on 1441 is loaded with legitimacy for war already! again I say you can argue about the WISDOM or POSSIBLE NEGATIVE RAMIFICATIONS of attacking Iraq NOW, but legally based on 1441 UN members are totally entitled to attack already. the anti-war camp's frankly pathetic attempts to cry "illegal" every time something they don't like happens is sooooooooo tiresome, argue your point based on values and reasoning instead of resorting to this lame pseudo-international-legal wrangling!

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
The fact that I think there are other ways to deal with Saddam, does not make me a supporter of him.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

OK, I'm listening, being one that would hate to see war again in the middle east I would love it if you could come up with a peaceful solution to this mess:

Whats your ideas then?
How do we remove Sadam?
How do we disarm Iraq from its WOMD?
How do we free the Iraqi people from the despotism of the Baath party?

Without resorting to the use of force...

[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
post #358 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>"If the US and others were to go outside the Council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the Charter."
"now face a momentous choice" (on Iraq)"If they fail to agree on a common position, and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action will be seriously impaired."

Kofi Annan, Yesterday (from his own homepage)</strong><hr></blockquote>I saw this and I was going to post it in this thread, but I didn't want to get back into the silly debate over whether "war is illegal."

New, I'm curious - do you think that any military action that is not sanctioned by the UN is wrong? I'm thinking of Kosovo among others. My view is that international law is different from the laws governing democratic/republican nations like those in Europe and the US and Israel. If those national laws are wrong, they can be challenged in courts, or changed through direct voting. They are evaluated (in the US and many other countries) vis-a-vis a Constitution. You also have a right to a trial by jury and an attorney etc. if you are accused by your gov't of breaking those laws. You get my point.

If the UN doesn't act in a situation like Rwanda, it may be strictly speaking illegal for a nation to use military force, but what other recourse is there? In my view, international law just doesn't hold the same weight or credibility as national law, and if it's broken in the process of doing something that is right by reference to other standards, so be it.
post #359 of 450
rashumon, I think a good argument can be made that you're right. But here's the relevant paragraph in 1441:

[quote]12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security; <hr></blockquote>I think it's clear that those who voted for 1441 did so because it was understood that war was not automatic, and that further security council resolutions were necessary. Even Bush and Blair appear to believe this, given their push for further resolutions.

But just to go back to my previous post, the problem is that there is no judicial review and no enforcement of something like this. Who knows what it means? Who is going to be the one to judge what it means? Who is going to enforce it?

[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
post #360 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>
My view is that international law is different from the laws governing democratic/republican nations like those in Europe and the US and Israel. If those national laws are wrong, they can be challenged in courts, or changed through direct voting. They are evaluated (in the US and many other countries) vis-a-vis a Constitution. You also have a right to a trial by jury and an attorney etc. if you are accused by your gov't of breaking those laws. You get my point.<hr></blockquote></strong>


Very good point BRussell - I coulden't agree more! even though I still think that the legal case for war against Iraq is Solid! you highlight a much more important point.

[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Human Shields (What are they thinking?)